YITP-13-47, PITT PACC 1314
Exotic Decays of the 125 GeV Higgs Boson
David Curtin,1 Rouven Essig,1 Stefania Gori,2, 3, 4 Prerit Jaiswal,5
Andrey Katz,6 Tao Liu,7 Zhen Liu,8 David McKeen,9, 10 Jessie Shelton,6
Matthew Strassler,6 Ze’ev Surujon,1 Brock Tweedie,8, 11 and Yi-Ming Zhong1, ∗
1C.N. Yang Institute for Theoretical Physics,
Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA
2Enrico Fermi Institute and Department of Physics,
University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA
3HEP Division, Argonne National Laboratory,
9700 Cass Ave., Argonne, IL 60439, USA
4Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
5Department of Physics, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306
6Center for the Fundamental Laws of Nature,
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
7Department of Physics, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology,
Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong
8PITT PACC, Department of Physics and Astronomy,
University of Pittsburgh, 3941 O’Hara St., Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA
9Department of Physics and Astronomy,
University of Victoria, Victoria, BC V8P 5C2, Canada
10Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
11Physics Department, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215, USA
1
arX
iv:1
312.
4992
v6 [
hep-
ph]
9 O
ct 2
017
Abstract
We perform an extensive survey of non-standard Higgs decays that are consistent with the
125 GeV Higgs-like resonance. Our aim is to motivate a large set of new experimental analyses on
the existing and forthcoming data from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). The explicit search for
exotic Higgs decays presents a largely untapped discovery opportunity for the LHC collaborations,
as such decays may be easily missed by other searches. We emphasize that the Higgs is uniquely
sensitive to the potential existence of new weakly coupled particles and provide a unified discussion
of a large class of both simplified and complete models that give rise to characteristic patterns of
exotic Higgs decays. We assess the status of exotic Higgs decays after LHC Run I. In many cases
we are able to set new nontrivial constraints by reinterpreting existing experimental analyses. We
point out that improvements are possible with dedicated analyses and perform some preliminary
collider studies. We prioritize the analyses according to their theoretical motivation and their
experimental feasibility. This document is accompanied by a website that will be continuously
updated with further information: exotichiggs.physics.sunysb.edu.
∗[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
2
Contents
1. Introduction and Overview 7
1.1. General Motivation to Search for Exotic Higgs Decays 8
1.2. Exotic Decay Modes of the 125 GeV Higgs Boson 13
1.3. Theoretical Models for Exotic Higgs Decays 19
1.3.1. SM + Scalar 19
1.3.2. 2HDM (+ Scalar) 23
1.3.3. SM + Fermion 35
1.3.4. SM + 2 Fermions 38
1.3.5. SM + Vector 40
1.3.6. MSSM 49
1.3.7. NMSSM with exotic Higgs decay to scalars 51
1.3.8. NMSSM with exotic Higgs decay to fermions 53
1.3.9. Little Higgs 55
1.3.10. Hidden Valleys 56
2. h→ E/T 61
2.1. Theoretical Motivation 61
2.2. Existing Collider Studies 62
2.3. Existing Experimental Searches and Limits 63
3. h→ 4b 64
3.1. Theoretical Motivation 64
3.2. Existing Collider Studies 65
3.3. Existing Experimental Searches and Limits 67
3.4. Proposals for New Searches at the LHC 69
4. h→ 2b2τττ 69
4.1. Theoretical Motivation 69
4.2. Existing Collider Studies 70
4.3. Discussion of Future Searches at the LHC 71
5. h→ 2b2µµµ 71
3
5.1. Theoretical Motivation 72
5.2. Existing Collider Studies and Experimental Searches 72
5.3. Proposals for New Searches at the LHC 73
6. h→ 4τττ , 2τττ2µµµ 78
6.1. Theoretical Motivation 78
6.2. Existing Collider Studies 81
6.3. Existing Experimental Searches and Limits 83
6.4. Proposals for New Searches at the LHC 89
7. h→ 4j 92
7.1. Theoretical Motivation 93
7.2. Existing Collider Studies 94
7.3. Existing Experimental Searches and Limits 95
8. h→ 2γγγ2j 96
8.1. Theoretical Motivation 96
8.2. Existing Collider Studies 97
8.3. Existing Experimental Searches and Limits 99
8.4. Proposals for Future Searches 99
9. h→ 4γγγ 100
9.1. Theoretical Motivation 100
9.2. Existing Collider Studies 101
9.3. Existing Experimental Searches and Limits 104
9.4. Proposals for New Searches at the LHC 104
10. h→ ZZD,Za→ 4` 105
10.1. Theoretical Motivation 105
10.1.1. h→ ZZD 105
10.1.2. h→ Za 106
10.2. Existing Collider Studies 107
10.3. Existing Experimental Searches and Limits 107
10.4. Proposals for New Searches at the LHC 110
4
11. h→ ZDZD → 4` 111
11.1. Theoretical Motivation 111
11.2. Existing Collider Studies 112
11.3. Existing Experimental Searches and Limits 112
12. h→ γγγ + E/T 117
12.1. Theoretical Motivations 117
12.2. Existing Collider Studies 118
12.3. Existing Experimental Searches and Limits 119
13. h→ 2γγγ + E/T 121
13.1. Theoretical Motivation 122
13.1.1. Non-Resonant 122
13.1.2. Resonant 123
13.1.3. Cascade 124
13.2. Existing Experimental Searches and Limits 124
14. h→ 4 Isolated Leptons + E/T 127
14.1. Theoretical Motivation 128
14.2. Existing Experimental Searches and Limits 129
15. h→ 2` + E/T 135
15.1. Theoretical Motivation 135
15.2. Existing Experimental Searches and Limits 136
16. h→ One Lepton-jet + X 139
16.1. Theoretical Motivation 140
16.2. Existing Collider Studies 141
16.3. Existing Experimental Searches and Limits 143
16.4. Proposals for New Searches at the LHC 144
17. h→ Two Lepton-jets + X 144
17.1. Theoretical Motivation 144
17.2. Existing Collider Studies 146
5
17.3. Existing Experimental Searches and Limits 146
18. h→ bb + E/T 148
18.1. Theoretical Motivation 149
18.2. Existing Collider Studies 150
18.3. Existing Experimental Searches and Limits 150
19. h→ τττ+τττ− + E/T 151
19.1. Theoretical Motivation 151
19.2. Existing Collider Studies 152
19.3. Existing Experimental Searches and Limits 153
20. Conclusions & Outlook 153
20.1. How to interpret the tables 154
20.2. Final States Without E/T 155
20.2.1. h→ aa→ fermions 155
20.2.2. h→ aa→ SM gauge bosons 157
20.2.3. h→ ZDZD, ZZD, Za 158
20.3. Final States with E/T 161
20.3.1. Larger E/T , without resonances 163
20.3.2. Larger E/T , with resonances 165
20.3.3. Small E/T 169
20.3.4. Summary 170
20.4. Collimated objects in pairs 170
20.5. For further study 173
20.6. Summary of Suggestions 174
A. Decay Rate Computation for 2HDM+S Light Scalar and Pseudoscalar 178
A.1. Light Singlet Mass Above 1 GeV 179
A.2. Light Singlet Mass Below 1 GeV 182
B. Surveying Higgs phenomenology in the PQ-NMSSM 183
References 186
6
1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
The discovery at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) of a Higgs-like particle near
125 GeV [1, 2] (referred to as “the Higgs”, h, for simplicity in this paper) is a triumph
for theoretical [3–11] and experimental particle physics, and marks the culmination of sev-
eral decades of experimental search. However, the experimental investigation of this new
state has only just begun. The Higgs plays an essential role in the Standard Model (SM)
of particle physics, and impacts a wide range of new physics beyond the SM (BSM). The
discovery of this new state presents us with a rich experimental program that includes the
precise measurement of its couplings to SM particles, the search for additional Higgs-like
states, and the focus of this paper: the search for “exotic” decays, i.e. decays that involve
new light states beyond the SM.
The aim of this document is to provide a summary and overview of the theoretical motiva-
tion and basis for a large set of new analyses that could be done by the LHC experimentalists.
In the course of doing so we provide a thorough and unified description of a large class of
models that generate exotic Higgs decays, and perform numerous original collider studies to
assess the current status and discovery potential of different modes.
Non-standard Higgs decays have always been a well-motivated possibility as evidenced by
an extensive existing, and growing, literature. They remain a well-motivated possibility even
with the discovery of a Higgs particle that is consistent with the simplest SM expectations.
Indeed, they may provide our only window into BSM physics at the LHC and must be
searched for explicitly as they are often unconstrained by other analyses. The search for non-
standard Higgs decays should form an important component of the experimental program
of the LHC and future colliders.
Our focus here will be on the existing LHC data at 7 and 8 TeV (“LHC7” and “LHC8”).
However, many signatures will remain unconstrained by this dataset and should be searched
for during future runs of the LHC and at other colliders. While this document may be
periodically updated, we note that it is accompanied by the website
exotichiggs.physics.sunysb.edu ,
which will serve as a centralized repository of information about new collider studies and
experimental analyses.
7
This document is structured as follows. In §1.1, we provide a general motivation for
non-standard Higgs decays. In §1.2, we then detail the decay modes considered in the
subsequent sections. We then summarize several simplified and complete models in §1.3 that
illustrate the ease with which non-standard Higgs decays arise without being in conflict with
the current LHC data. (Two Appendices contain some additional details). The remaining
sections, §2–§19, each treat one exotic Higgs decay in detail and contain additional comments
on theory motivation, existing (theoretical) collider studies, limits from existing collider
searches (including our own reinterpretations of studies not aimed at Higgs decays), and in
some cases our own preliminary collider studies outlining new search proposals at the LHC.
A summary in §20 considers the relative sensitivity of possible analyses, and concludes
with a suggested priority list for future analyses of both Run I and Run II data, a brief
discussion of Run II triggering issues, and a short catalogue of research areas deserving
further investgation in the short term.
1.1. General Motivation to Search for Exotic Higgs Decays
In this subsection, we review the reasons why searches for exotic Higgs decays are a
particularly rich and fruitful way to search for new physics.
The data collected at LHC7 and LHC8 may easily contain O(50, 000) exotic Higgs decays
per experiment, presenting us with a large discovery potential for new physics, of a kind
which is mostly unconstrained by existing analyses. Indeed, as we will explain in more detail
in the following, the current data allows the branching ratio (Br) of the 125 GeV Higgs boson
into BSM states to be as large as O(20%− 50%), which includes constraints from observing
the Higgs boson in various SM channels. Table I lists the number of exotic Higgs decays
that could be contained in the LHC7 and LHC8 data, assuming Br(h → BSM) = 10%; we
list these numbers separately for each Higgs production channel. Of course these are only
the number of events produced; the trigger efficiency depends strongly on the final states
that appear in the exotic decay. Nevertheless, the table makes it clear that, for exotic final
states where triggering is not disastrously inefficient, a dedicated search has the potential
for a spectacular discovery.
Several theoretical and experimental studies have constrained the possible Br into an
invisible or an (as yet) undetected final state by fitting for the couplings of the Higgs to
8
Production σ7 TeV (pb) N10%ev , 5 fb−1 σ8 TeV (pb) N10%
ev , 20 fb−1 σ14 TeV (pb) N10%ev , 300 fb−1
ggF 15.13 7,600 19.27 38,500 49.85 1.5× 106
VBF 1.22 610 1.58 3,200 4.18 125,000
hW± 0.58 290 0.70 1,400 1.5 45,000
hW±(`±ν) 0.58 · 0.21 62 0.70 · 0.21 300 1.5 · 0.21 9,600
hZ 0.34 170 0.42 830 0.88 26,500
hZ(`+`−) 0.34 · 0.067 11 0.42 · 0.067 56 0.88 · 0.067 1,800
tth 0.086 43 0.13 260 0.61 18,300
TABLE I: The number of exotic Higgs decays in existing LHC data, per experiment, at 7 TeV
(5 fb−1) and 8 TeV (20 fb−1), and at a future 14 TeV run (300 fb−1), assuming the Stan-
dard Model production cross section of a 125 GeV Higgs boson [12] and a branching ratio of
Br(h→ BSM) = 10% for various production channels: gluon-gluon fusion (ggF), vector-boson fu-
sion (VBF), associated production (hW± and hZ, with and without branching ratios W± → `±ν
or Z → `+`−, where ` = e, µ, included), and through radiation off the top-quark (tth).
SM states. These “coupling fits” constrain Br(h → BSM) . 20% at 95% CL if the Higgs
is produced with SM strength; a larger BSM branching fraction, Br(h → BSM) . 30%, is
possible if new physics is allowed to modify the loop-induced Higgs couplings to both gg
and γγ (see for example [13–16] for some more recent fits). Fits that take more conservative
approaches for the theoretical uncertainty on the SM Higgs production cross-sections can
leave room for larger (. 60%) BSM branching fractions [17]. This result is similar to the one
obtained by the ATLAS and CMS collaborations [18, 19]. Bounds can be further relaxed for
models with Higgs couplings to gauge bosons larger than in the SM [20]. Future projections
for the LHC suggest an ultimate precision on this indirect measurement of Br(h → BSM)
of O(5− 10%), see e.g. [21–23]. Branching fractions of O(10%) into exotic decay modes are
therefore not only still allowed by existing data but will remain reasonable targets for the
duration of the physics program of the LHC.
In the right columns of Table I we show the possible number of exotic Higgs decays in the
anticipated LHC14 dataset with 300 fb−1, again assuming Br(h→ BSM) = 10%. The large
rates for producing these exotic states suggest that branching fractions as small as O(10−6)
9
could be detected, if the decay signature is both visible and clean.
As for any newly discovered particle, a detailed experimental characterization of the Higgs
is imperative. Such an experimental characterization must necessarily include an exhaustive
study of its decay modes. These programs have been established for other particles, such as
the top quark, the Z-boson, B-hadrons etc., as rare decay modes of SM particles are prime
places for new physics to appear. However, it is worth emphasizing that the Higgs boson
is a special case. The tiny natural width of the SM Higgs boson, together with the ease
with which the Higgs can mediate interactions with new physics, make exotic Higgs decays
a natural and expected signature of a very broad class of theories beyond the SM.
A SM-like Higgs boson with a mass of mh = 125 GeV has an extremely narrow width,
Γh ' 4.07 MeV, so that Γh/mh ' 3.3 × 10−5. The reason is that tree-level decays to SM
fermions are suppressed by the small Yukawa couplings, e.g. yb,τ . O(10−2), decays to two
photons (γγ), two gluons (gg), and Zγ are suppressed by loop factors, and decays to WW ∗
and ZZ∗ are suppressed by multibody phase space. Since the dominant decay, to two b-
quarks, is controlled by a coupling with a size of only ∼ 0.017 (this assumes a running
b-quark mass mb(125 GeV) = 2.91 GeV evaluated in the MS scheme), even a small coupling
to another light state can easily open up additional sizable decay modes [24–27].
In fact, we have very good reasons to expect that new physics may couple preferentially
to the Higgs boson. The brief survey in §1.3 of simplified models and theories that produce
exotic Higgs decays will provide ample examples that corroborate this statement. More
generally, the Higgs provides one of only a few “portals” that allow SM matter to interact
with hidden-sector matter that is not charged under the SM forces (e.g. [28–32]), and where
the leading interaction can be (super-)renormalizable.1 Since the operator |H|2 is a SM
singlet, we can couple it to a singlet scalar field s through the Higgs portal as
∆L =ζ
2s2|H|2 , (1)
where we have assumed for simplicity that s has a conserved Z2 parity. This kind of inter-
action is a very common building block in models of extended Higgs sectors. If ms < mh/2,
1 The other two portals are the “vector portal” at mass dimension 2, namely the hypercharge field strength
Bµν , and the “neutrino portal”, given by the product of the Higgs and a lepton doublet, HL, with mass
dimension 5/2. The vector portal can mediate, e.g., kinetic mixing between hypercharge and a new U(1)
gauge field with the renormalizable interaction F ′µνBµν ; the neutrino portal operator can mediate the
renormalizable coupling HLN , with N a sterile neutrino.
10
this interaction allows h → ss after electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB), and even
a coupling as small as ζ = 10−2 yields Br(h → BSM) = 10%. In Fig. 1 (left), we plot
Br(h → ss) for various couplings ζ as a function of the singlet mass ms. (The orange line
shows the expected branching fraction if the interaction in Eq. (1) generates the s mass.
Achieving larger branching fractions requires a cancellation between the Higgs contribution
and another contribution to the s mass.) Even very small couplings of the Higgs boson to
new states beyond the SM can lead to potential signals at the LHC.
There are many possible interactions through the Higgs portal. One striking and generic
feature of these interactions is that searches for exotic Higgs decays can easily be sensitive to
new physics scales & 1 TeV. As one example, consider the (effective) dimension-six Higgs-
portal interaction
∆L =µ
Λ2|H|2ψψ , (2)
where ψ is some new singlet fermion and µ is a chiral symmetry breaking parameter with
dimensions of mass. Taking µ ∼ mψ for simplicity, we show the resulting Br(h → ψψ)
versus mψ for various Λ in Fig. 1 (right). Even Br(h → ψψ) ∼ O(10−2) induced by the
higher-dimensional operator of Eq. (2) is sensitive to scales Λ & 1 TeV. The scaling µ ∼ mψ
is conservative — some models can yield µ ∼ v or greater, allowing even further reach (see,
e.g. , Fig. 11). Thus exotic Higgs decays can indirectly probe new physics scales beyond
the kinematic reach of the LHC, and may provide the only evidence of a new sector that is
accessible to the LHC.
Given the large Higgs sample that is being collected, it may at first glance seem sur-
prising that the majority of possible exotic Higgs decay modes are poorly constrained, if at
all, by existing searches. A major reason for this is that the dominant Higgs production
process, gluon fusion, creates Higgs bosons largely at rest, without any associated objects.
In a four-body exotic cascade decay of such a Higgs boson, for example, the characteristic
transverse momenta of the daughter particles is not large, pT . 30 GeV. Typical exotica
searches at the LHC place much higher analysis cuts on object energies, leaving such decays
largely unconstrained. In addition, the SM backgrounds are larger at lower energies, so
that dedicated analyses are required to find a new physics signal. In many cases, exotic
Higgs decay signals are thus not seen or constrained by existing non-targeted analyses. It is
necessary to perform dedicated searches for exotic Higgs decays. Since there are dozens of
possible exotic decay modes, dozens of new searches are needed to discover or constrain a
11
Ζ = 0.001
Ζ = 0.005
Ζ = 0.01Ζ = ms
2 �v2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
10-4
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
ms HGeVL
Br
Hh®
ssLk
L = 0.5 TeV
L = 1 TeV
L = 2 TeV
0 10 20 30 40 50 6010-6
10-5
10-4
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
mΨHGeVL
Br
Hh®
ΨΨ
Lk
FIG. 1: Sensitivity of a 125 GeV Higgs to light weakly coupled particles. Left: Exotic Higgs
branching fraction to a singlet scalar s versus the singlet’s mass ms, assuming the interaction
Eq. (1) is solely responsible for the h → ss decay. If the interaction in Eq. (1) generates the s
mass, the result is the orange curve; the other curves are for fixed and independent values of ζ and
ms. Right: Exotic Higgs branching fraction to a new fermion ψ interacting with the Higgs as in
Eq. (2) to illustrate the sensitivity of exotic Higgs decay searches to high scales, here Λ. We take
here µ = mψ.
broad and generic class of theories beyond the SM.
In some cases, particularly if the exotic decay produces only jets with or without E/T , it
may be difficult to trigger on Higgs events produced in the (dominant) gluon-gluon-fusion
channel. However, even under these pessimistic assumptions, a few hundred events should
still be on tape in the existing 7 and 8 TeV datasets, since the associated production of
the Higgs boson with a leptonically-decaying Z- or W -boson will usually be recorded due
to the presence of one or two leptons. Moreover, additional events may have triggered in
the vector boson fusion (VBF) channel due to the rapidity gap of two of the jets in these
events (see next paragraph). In some cases, more sophisticated triggers on combinations of
objects, possibly with low thresholds, may be required to write a larger fraction of events to
tape.
In addition to the “standard” LHC7 and LHC8 datasets, an additional 300–500 Hz of
data was collected and “parked” during the LHC8 running. This parked dataset was not
reconstructed immediately, but may present additional opportunities for exotic Higgs anal-
yses. For example, at CMS, it included a trigger on Higgs VBF production (Mjj > 650 GeV
12
and |∆ηjj| > 3.5) [33]. In ATLAS [34], the applications for Higgs physics are less direct but
the lowered object pT thresholds in the ATLAS delayed data stream may present opportuni-
ties. More generally, it is important for the LHC14 run to be aware of cases in which simple
changes in the trigger could appreciably increase or decrease the number of recorded exotic
decays.
The subject of exotic Higgs decays is not a new one. There is an extensive literature
on exotic Higgs decays, much of it driven by the past desire to hide a light Higgs from
LEP searches, both to preserve electroweak naturalness and to maximize agreement with
precision electroweak fits that yielded a best-fit Higgs mass below the LEP bound of ∼ 114
GeV (see e.g. [35] for a review). Now that the Higgs boson has been discovered, however, the
questions have changed. We know the mass of (at least one) Higgs boson, and we also know
that its branching fraction into exotic states cannot exceed ≈ 60%. The relevant question
is now: for various exotic final states, what branching fractions can be probed at the LHC,
and how can the sensitivity to these final states be maximized?
The search for exotic Higgs decays is a program which deserves to be pursued in a
systematic fashion. Our aim in this work is to make such a physics program easier by
providing a centralized assessment of models, signatures, and limits.
1.2. Exotic Decay Modes of the 125 GeV Higgs Boson
In this section, we list the exotic decay modes that are the focus of this paper. We organize
them by decay topology. While this is not the only possible way to make a systematic list
of possible exotic decays, it has the advantage that it is well-adapted to a large number of
specific models in the literature, allowing a relatively simple mapping between these models
and our list; however, since any number of final state particles can be invisible, different
topologies can yield the same experimental signature. We also focus on topologies that arise
in models commonly found in the literature, many of which we review in §1.3.
In our discussion of exotic decays we will make three simplifying assumptions:
1) The observed Higgs at 125 GeV is principally responsible for breaking the
electroweak symmetry. This means that in models with additional physical scalars,
the theory is usually close to a decoupling limit in which the 125 GeV state is SM-like.
The production cross sections for this particle are then close to those predicted for
13
the SM Higgs. The decay modes are also SM-like, but modifications of O(10 − 50%)
are theoretically easily obtained and consistent with current data (see discussion in
§1.1). We note that this is not the only scenario allowed by current LHC data, as
some non-decoupling limits are still viable for BSM models (see e.g. [36–39]), but the
assumption of a decoupling-like limit is generic and minimal. We emphasize that any
exotic-decay search that targets a 125 GeV Higgs should also scan over a much wider
Higgs mass range, looking for additional Higgs bosons that may appear in a more
complex Higgs sector and may often decay to a final state not found for an SM Higgs.
2) The observed Higgs at 125 GeV decays to new particles beyond the SM. We
consider scenarios in which the newly-discovered Higgs boson enables the discovery of
new, weakly-coupled particles, which in many cases have exotic Higgs decays as their
primary or only production mode at the LHC. We do not consider rare Higgs decays to
SM particles, which can be very sensitive to new physics, whether through its effects
in loops (such as in γγ or Zγ), through its modifications of the V -V -H couplings
[40] or its nonstandard flavor structures (as in lepton family number-violating decays
h→ τµ, see [41, 42] and references therein).
3) The initial exotic 125 GeV Higgs decay is to two neutral BSM particles.
Generally, to compete with the SM decay modes, the Higgs decay to exotic particles
needs to begin as a two-body decay, and LEP limits place stringent constraints on
light charged particles [43, 44]. Three-body or higher-body exotic decays typically
require new states with masses m . mh that have substantial couplings to the Higgs
boson, in order to induce any appreciable BSM branching fraction after the phase
space suppression [45]. In some cases, these light particles can appear in loops and
change the Higgs decay rates to γγ and/or Zγ final states. While this is certainly
worthy of further study we will not do so here.
Our focus is thus on decays that begin via the two-body process h→ X1X2, where X1,2
are BSM states (possibly identical). Depending on the properties of X1 and X2, a large
number of distinct exotic Higgs decay modes are possible. The topologies we consider are
shown in Fig. 2. Our choice is guided by existing models in the literature, but of course
there are other possibilities as well. The specific modes we consider (as well as some modes
that fall into the same category but that we do not discuss further) are listed below. In
14
hh
h h
h→ 2 h→ 2→ 3 h→ 2→ 3→ 4 h→ 2→ (1 + 3)
h h h
h→ 2→ 4 h→ 2→ 4→ 6 h→ 2→ 6
FIG. 2: The exotic Higgs decay topologies we consider in this document, along with the labels
we use to refer to them. Every intermediate line in these diagrams represents an on-shell, neutral
particle, which is either a Z-boson or a BSM particle.
parentheses we list the section numbers where a particular decay mode will be discussed in
more detail. A pair of particles in parentheses denotes that they form a resonance.
• h→ 2
This topology occurs for Higgs decays into BSM particles with a lifetime longer than
detector scales. It includes h→ invisible decays [24, 46–48] and, in principle, h→ R-
hadrons, although the latter scenario is strongly constrained. In this paper, we consider
only:
1. h→ invisible (E/T ) (§2)
• h→ 2→ 3
Here the Higgs decays to one final-state particle that is detector-stable and another
one that decays promptly or with a displaced vertex. Possibilities include
1. h→ γ + E/T (§12).
2. h→ (bb) + E/T (§18).
3. h→ (ττ) + E/T (§19).
15
4. h→ (γγ) + E/T (§13).
5. h→ (``) + E/T (collimated leptons §16).
One might also consider h → γ + Z or γ + Z ′, where the Z ′ decays to two SM
particles and may have different decay modes than the Z; for instance, the Z ′ could be
leptophilic. In the SM, Br(h→ γZ) ∼ 10−3, but this can be enhanced in BSM models,
e.g. [49]. The semi-invisible h→ γ +E/T signature arises in the SM (h→ γZ → γνν),
but can also be enhanced in BSM theories, e.g., h→ BG→ γ + 2G, where B and G
are a bino and gravitino respectively [50].
• h→ 2→ 3→ 4
For this topology, we only consider signatures that contain E/T . In particular, we
consider Higgs decays to neutral fermions h → χ1χ2, where χ2 → aχ1 or χ2 →
V χ1 and χ1 is invisible. Similar decays can occur in more general hidden sectors
where the roles of χ1,2 may be played either by fermionic or bosonic fields [31, 51].
Such single-resonance topologies give rise to semi-invisible decays, and appear in (for
example) the PQ-symmetry limit of the Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric Standard
Model (NMSSM) [52, 53], where the resonance is exotic, or the SM extended with a
neutrino sector like the νSM [54–56], where the resonance is the W or Z. Discussion
in a simplified model context can be found in [57]. We consider in more detail:
1. (bb) + E/T (§18)
2. (ττ) + E/T (§19)
3. (γγ) + E/T (§13)
4. (`+`−) + E/T (isolated §15, collimated §16)
• h→ 2→ (1 + 3)
This topology occurs when the resonant cascade decays of the h → 2 → 3 → 4
topology go off-shell. Here again we only consider semi-invisible signatures, and focus
on leptonic signatures.
1. `+`− + E/T (isolated §15)
16
• h→ 2→ 4
In this topology the Higgs decays as h → aa′, ss′, V1V2, aV1 → (xx)(yy), where a and
a′ (s and s′, V1 and V2) are not necessarily distinct pseudo-scalars (scalars, vectors).
In most cases we can reconstruct two resonances. The scalars and pseudo-scalars can
typically decay to x, y = quarks, leptons, photons, or gluons, while the vectors can
typically decay to x, y = quarks or leptons. This topology occurs in well-known BSM
theories like the R-symmetric limit of the NMSSM [58–61], Little Higgs Models [62–
64], or any theory that features additional SM singlet scalars, such as [31, 65–71]. Also
possible is the fermionic decay h→ χ2χ2 → 2(γχ1), which occurs in, e.g., the MSSM
with gauge-mediated SUSY-breaking [72] (see also [73] for discussions of 1 to 3 light
jets +E/T in simplified models with this topology). In this paper, we consider in more
detail:
1. (bb)(bb) (§3)
2. (bb) (τ+τ−) (§4)
3. (bb) (µ+µ−) (§5)
4. (τ+τ−) (τ+τ−) (§6)
5. (τ+τ−) (µ+µ−) (§6)
6. (jj)(jj) (§7)
7. (jj) (γγ) (§8)
8. (`+`−) (`+`−) (§10 for h→ ZZD, §11 for h→ ZDZD, §17 for collimated leptons)
9. (γγ) (γγ) (§9)
10. γγ + E/T (no γγ-resonance, §13)
• h→ 2→ 4→ 6
Here both the Higgs’ daughters undergo on-shell cascade decays. As for the single-
cascade topology h → 2 → (1 + 3), examples of such cascades include NMSSM neu-
tralinos, decaying via χ2 → χ1a, a → ff , or right-handed neutrinos, decaying via
NR → νZ, `W . More elaborate hidden sectors allow for many possibilities, such as
φ2 → aφ1, a → gg(γγ), or φ1 → ZDφ2, ZD → ``, qq (here φ1,2 are BSM states that
may be either fermions or scalars).
17
We only consider final states with leptons for this topology:
1. h→ 2(``) + E/T (isolated §14, collimated §17).
2. h→ (``) + E/T +X (isolated §15, collimated §16)
• h→ 2→ 6
There are various possibilities here. Examples include Higgs decays to R-parity vio-
lating neutralinos, which can yield h → χ1χ1 → 6j, 4j + 2`, 4` + 2ν. In addition,
any of the resonant cascade decays discussed above may become three-body. Another
example is flavored dark matter, where the Higgs can decay to two heavy dark flavors
first and then into light quarks and the dark matter candidate via higher dimensional
operator, resulting in h→ 4j + E/T [74].
We only consider final states with isolated leptons for this topology:
1. h→ 2`+ E/T +X (§15).
2. h→ 4`+ E/T (§14).
• h → 2 → many, where “many” refers to many SM particles, including “weird jets”.
This occurs [31] in Higgs decays to hidden-sector particles that undergo a long series of
cascade decays or a hidden-sector parton shower to (many) SM particles and possibly
detector-stable hidden-sector particles that appear as E/T . The SM particles produced
could be dominated by leptons, photons, or hadrons, leading to lepton-jets, photon-
jets, or “weird” high-multiplicity jets. We do not consider any of these final states in
more detail.
• Finally, in all of the decay topologies listed above, displaced vertices are possible and
should be considered in the LHC analyses. A simple example [31, 75] is h → 2 → 4,
where the two particles produced in the Higgs decay are long-lived and decay far out
in the detector; a similar signature arises in R-parity violating supersymmetry [76].
These signatures offer opportunities for LHCb [75, 76] as well as ATLAS and CMS,
but we do not cover them here. A number of relevant experimental searches have
already been performed [77–94].
In the following sections we examine most of the above decay modes in detail, outline
their theoretical motivations, and review existing collider studies and relevant experimental
18
searches. For some channels with significant discovery potential we also define benchmark
models that can be used to design future searches, obtain limits from already performed
searches, and/or perform collider studies to demonstrate how much exclusion can be achieved
with the extant LHC dataset.
1.3. Theoretical Models for Exotic Higgs Decays
In this section, we describe and review theoretical models that give rise to exotic Higgs
decays. We begin with several “simplified models” (in the spirit of e.g. [95]), which cap-
ture the essential ingredients that are involved in more complicated BSM models. It often
makes sense to present experimental results in a simplified model framework, as only a few
parameters are needed to capture the relevant details; for example, non-SM four-body de-
cays of the Higgs of the form h → φφ → (ff)(f ′f ′) (where φ is a singlet particle and f, f ′
are SM fermions) can be parametrized merely by mh = 125 GeV, mφ, Br(h → φφ), and
Br(φ→ ff). More parameters can be added if the decays are displaced or involve multi-step
cascades.
We discuss adding to the SM a scalar, one or two fermions, or a vector. We also describe
various two-Higgs-doublet (2HDM) models with the addition of a scalar. We then turn
our attention to more complicated models that have ingredients similar to the simplified
models, namely the MSSM, NMSSM, and Little Higgs models. Finally, we summarize the
rich phenomenology possible in Hidden-Valley models.
1.3.1. SM + Scalar
A particularly simple extension of the SM is to add to it one real scalar singlet S. This
model can easily produce non-trivial exotic Higgs decays, since 1.) the Higgs can decay to
pair of singlets; and 2.) the singlet decays to SM particles (by virtue of mixing with the
Higgs). Singlet scalars coupled to the Higgs also provide a well-known avenue for enhancing
the electroweak phase transition in the early universe, which is a necessary ingredient for
electroweak baryogenesis (see e.g. [96]). We describe this simple model below, as well as
two small variations (one with more symmetry, one with a complex scalar), but all three
models, as well as other variations, can yield essentially identical phenomenology. In §1.3.2,
19
this will be generalized to two-Higgs-doublet models with a singlet.
Three Examples
At the renormalizable level, gauge invariance allows the singlet S to couple only to itself
and to H†H ≡ |H|2. The resulting potential is given by
V (H,S) = V (H) + V (S) + k S |H|2 +1
2ζ S2 |H|2 , (3)
where V (S) is a general quartic polynomial that may give S a vacuum expectation value.
The couplings k and ζ generate mixings between H and S. Assuming those mixings are
small, we identify the uneaten doublet degree of freedom to be the SM-like Higgs with
mh = 125 GeV and take the singlet field to have a mass below mh/2. The small mixings
give mass eigenstates h and s, which are mostly doublet- and singlet-like, respectively. The
decays h → ss are generated by an effective cubic term, and s decays to SM particles via
its doublet admixture.
Imposing a Z2 symmetry S → −S, we can obtain a simpler version of this model with
similar phenomenology. In this case, V (S) contains only quadratic and quartic terms and
k = 0, e.g.
V (H,S) = −µ2 |H|2 − 1
2µ′
2S2 + λ |H|4 +
1
4κS4 +
1
2ζ S2 |H|2. (4)
Depending on the choice of couplings, the potential may have a minimum at S = 0, in which
case the Z2 is unbroken, there is no mixing between H and S, and the S does not decay; the
coupling ζ induces the invisible decay h→ ss. If the minimum instead has S 6= 0, then the
Z2 is broken, and the coupling ζ now not only produces a cubic term but also a quadratic
term that allows H and S to mix. In this case, the phenomenology is just as described in
the previous paragraph, i.e. h→ ss for ms < mh/2, with s decaying to SM particles.
A third model, with essentially identical phenomenology, involves a theory with a complex
scalar and an approximate U(1) global symmetry.2 Here the scalar potential is as above,
with S now complex, and with a small U(1) breaking part:
V (H,S) = V0(|H|2, |S|2) + V1(|H|2, S, S†) (5)
2 An exact U(1) symmetry leads to invisible decays, while a spontaneously broken U(1) gives rise to an
unacceptable massless Nambu-Goldstone boson; a gauged U(1) will be discussed in §1.3.2.
20
V0 = −µ2 |H|2 − µ′2 |S|2 + λ |H|4 + κ |S|4 + ζ |S|2|H|2 (6)
V1 = (ρ+ ξS |S|2 + ξH |H|2)S + hermitean conjugate + other terms (7)
where we have chosen not to consider the most general V1 for illustration purposes. If
the potential is such that S develops a non-zero vacuum expectation value, the spectrum
consists of a massive scalar S and a light pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone boson a with mass ma.
If ms >12mh > ma, then h → aa is possible, which is an invisible decay unless the U(1)-
violating terms also violate charge conjugation. In that case, a can mix with the massive
state s, which in turn mixes with H as in previous examples, allowing the a to decay to SM
particles, with couplings inherited from H.
Phenomenology
After electroweak symmetry breaking there are two relevant mass-eigenstates : the SM-
like scalar h at 125 GeV containing a small admixture of S, and the mostly-singlet scalar s
containing a small admixture of H. The phenomenology of all three variants above is the
same, as far as decays of the form h→ ss→ SM are concerned. It can be captured in terms
of three parameters:
1. The effective Lagrangian contains a term of the form µv h s s, which gives h→ ss with
Br(h→ exotic) determined by µv.
2. The singlet’s mass ms affects Br(h→ exotic) and the type of SM final states available
for s→ SM.
3. The mixing angle between S and H, denoted here by θS, determines the overall width
of s→ SM. If s cannot decay to other non-SM fields, θS controls its lifetime.
Apart from these continuous parameters, the parity of s also affects the partial widths to
different final states, mostly near thresholds. Note that the total width of s is usually not
important for phenomenology if it decays promptly. However, the lifetime of s is macroscopic
(cτ ∼ meters) if θ . 10−6. This possibility is technically natural and thus the experimental
search for displaced vertices deserves serious consideration [75]; however, we do not discuss
this further here. Therefore, for a large part of parameter space, only µv and ms is relevant
for collider phenomenology as this fixes Br(h→ ss) and Br(s→ SM).
21
�����
�����
�����
���������
� �� �� �� �� �� ������
����
����
����
����
�� [���]
��(�→��)
FIG. 3: Size of the cubic coupling µv in units of Higgs expectation value v to yield the indicated
h→ ss branching fraction as a function of singlet mass, as given by Eq. (8).
The partial width for exotic Higgs decays is given by
Γ(h→ ss) =1
8π
µ2v
mh
√1− 4m2
s
m2h
≈(µv/v
0.015
)2
Γ(h→ SM) , (8)
where the last step assumes ms � mh/2. Therefore, the new branching ratio is O(1) even
for small values of µv/v. This is not surprising, if we recall that in the SM the bottom
quark takes up almost 60% of the total width although its Yukawa coupling is only ∼ 0.017.
In Fig. 3, we show contours of µv/v in the Br(h→ ss) versus ms plane.
The individual partial widths of the singlet s to SM particles are readily computed us-
ing existing calculations for Higgs decays, e.g. [97, 98]. Decays into W ∗W ∗ and Z∗Z∗ are
negligible for ms < mh/2. At lowest order, the partial decay width to fermions is given by
Γ(s→ ff) = sin2 θSNc
8π
msm2f
v2β3f , (9)
where βf =√
1− 4m2f/m
2s and Nc is the number of colors, equaling 3 (1) for quarks (lep-
tons). For the pseudoscalar singlet state a, β3f is replaced by βf . The mixing suppres-
sion sin2 θS is common to all partial widths, including those to gluons and photons, and
thus does not affect branching ratios if s only decays to SM particles. Br(s → SM) and
Br(h→ ss→ SM) are shown for ms > 1 GeV in Fig. 4 on the left and right, respectively.
22
It is clear that a simple singlet extension of the SM generically implies significant branching
ratios of exotic Higgs decays to 4 SM objects.
The theoretical calculations become increasingly inaccurate as ms is lowered to ∼ 1 GeV,
where perturbative QCD breaks down, or when ms is close to a hadronic resonance, which
can enhance the decay rates [40]. Decays to quarkonium states are suppressed for s but may
be important for a. For ms < 1 GeV and above the pion threshold, partial widths have to
be computed within a low energy effective theory of QCD, such as soft-pion theory or the
chiral Lagrangian method. Nevertheless, it is clear that the dominant decay of the singlet is
to some combination of hadrons, which are boosted due to the large mass difference between
the singlet and h. The resulting two-track jet may look like a low-quality hadronic τ -decay.
Between the muon and pion thresholds (210 MeV . ms . 270 MeV), the dominant decay
is to µ+µ−, while for ms . 210 MeV, the dominant decay is to e+e−. Photons are the only
possible final state for ms < 2me, in which case the scalar is detector-stable.
Further details of the branching ratio calculation can be found in §1.3.2 and Appendix A,
which also includes a more detailed discussion of pseudoscalar decays.
For ms . 2mb, the sbb coupling can in principle be probed by bottomonium de-
cay [99, 100]. The strongest limits are Br(Υ(1S) → γτ+τ−) . 10−5 by BaBar [101], which
constraints the Yukawa coupling to satisfy ysbb . 0.4 for Br(s → τ+τ−) = 1 [102, 103]. In
the SM+S scenario, ysbb = sin θS yhbb with yhbb ≈ 0.02 in the SM. Clearly the Upsilon decay
measurement provides no meaningful bounds on singlet extensions. Similar arguments apply
to pseudoscalars, and hence the 2HDM+S and NMSSM in the next sections.
1.3.2. 2HDM (+ Scalar)
The SM Higgs sector is made up of a single SU(2)L doublet H with hypercharge Y = +12,
denoted by H ∼ 2+1/2. Adding a doublet to this minimal picture is one of the simplest exten-
sions of the Higgs sector compatible with a ρ-parameter close to 1. Such extensions are found
in several well-motivated theories, such as supersymmetry [104] and axion models [105, 106],
where holomorphy and the Peccei-Quinn symmetry, respectively, necessitate an additional
doublet; theories of electroweak baryogenesis, which might be made viable with additional
doublets [107]; and grand unified models [40]. For this reason, it makes sense to define the
most general Two-Higgs Doublet Model (2HDM) and study it in detail (for a comprehensive
23
1 10 20 40 602 4 6 810-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
ms [GeV]
BR
(s→SM)
bb
cc
ττ
μμ
gg
γγ
uu + dd + ss
1 10 20 40 602 4 6 810-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
ms [GeV]
BR
(h→ss
→XXYY)
4b
2b2τ
2c2τ
4τ
4g
2g2τ
2b2μ
4μ
2τ2μ
2g2μ
FIG. 4: Left: Branching ratios of a CP-even scalar singlet to SM particles, as function of ms.
Right: Branching ratios of exotic decays of the 125 GeV Higgs boson as function of ms, in the
SM + Scalar model described in the text, scaled to Br(h → ss) = 1. Hadronization effects likely
invalidate our simple calculation in the shaded regions.
review, see e.g. [108]; for a discussion on the impact of recent SM-like Higgs boson discovery,
see e.g. [109]). Below we will then add a light scalar to the 2HDM to obtain a rich set of
exotic Higgs decays.
The most general 2HDM Higgs potential is given by [40]
V = m21|H1|2 +m2
2|H2|2 +λ1
2|H1|2 +
λ2
2|H2|2 + λ3|H1|2|H2|2 + λ4|H†1H2|2 + (10)
λ5
2
((H1H2)2 + c.c.
)+m2
12 (H1H2 + c.c.) +(λ6|H1|2(H1H2) + c.c.
)+(λ7|H2|2(H1H2) + c.c.
).
We choose the charges of the Higgs fields such that H1 ∼ 2−1/2 and H2 ∼ 2+1/2. Note that we
choose conventions that differ slightly from the “standard” conventions of [40, 108]; this will
simplify the transition to supersymmetry models below.3 The scalar doublets H1,2 acquire
vacuum expectation values v1,2, which we assume here are real and aligned. Expanding
around the minima yields two complex and four real degrees of freedom
H1 =1√2
v1 +H01,R + iH0
1,I
H−1,R + iH−1,I
, H2 =1√2
H+2,R + iH+
2,I
v2 +H02,R + iH0
2,I
. (11)
3 To recover the conventions of [40] set Φ2 = H2, Φ1 = iσ2H∗1 .
24
The charged scalar and pseudoscalar mass matrices are diagonalized by a rotation angle β,
defined as tan β = v2/v1. One charged (complex) field and one neutral pseudoscalar com-
bination of H01,2, I are eaten by the SM gauge bosons after electroweak symmetry breaking.
The other complex field yields two charged mass eigenstates, H±, which we assume are
heavy and will thus play no further role in our discussions. The surviving three real degrees
of freedom yield one neutral pseudoscalar mass eigenstate,
A = H01,I sin β −H0
2,I cos β , (12)
and two neutral scalar mass eigenstates, h
H0
=
− sinα cosα
cosα sinα
H01,R
H02,R
, (13)
where4 −π/2 ≤ α ≤ π/2. Our notation anticipates the assumption below that the model is
in a decoupling limit, so that h is the SM-like Higgs and H0 is the other, heavier, scalar.
Allowing the most general Yukawa couplings to fermions would result in large Flavor-
Changing Neutral Currents (FCNCs). This can be avoided by imposing Z2 symmetries to
ensure that fermions with the same quantum numbers all couple to only one Higgs field. This
results in four “standard” types of fermion couplings commonly discussed in the literature:
Type I (all fermions couple to H2), Type II (MSSM-like, dR and eR couple to H1, uR to
H2), Type III (lepton-specific, leptons/quarks couple to H1/H2 respectively) and Type IV
(flipped, with uR, eR coupling to H2 and dR to H1). The couplings of the h, H0, and A mass
eigenstates to fermions and gauge fields relative to the SM Higgs couplings are summarized
in Table II.5
In general, 2HDMs could allow for exotic decays of the 125 GeV state of the form h→ AA,
H0 → hh,AA or h→ ZA (where we temporarily identified the 125 GeV state with either h
or H0), where the daughter (pseudo)scalars decay to SM fermions or gauge bosons. However,
while this possibility can be realized in certain corners of parameter space, 2HDMs are by
now too constrained from existing data [113, 114] to allow for a wide variety of exotic Higgs
decay phenomenology.
4 Contrast this to the MSSM Higgs potential, where −π/2 ≤ α ≤ 0.5 More general fermion couplings are possible within the framework of Minimal Flavor Violation [110, 111].
We do not discuss this case here since we use the 2HDM to illustrate a range of possible exotic Higgs
decay signatures, which would not be qualitatively different in the MFV scenarios.
25
Couplings I II III (Lepton specific) IV (Flipped)
h
ghV V sin(β − α) sin(β − α) sin(β − α) sin(β − α)
ghtt cosα/ sinβ cosα/ sinβ cosα/ sinβ cosα/ sinβ
ghbb cosα/ sinβ − sinα/ cosβ cosα/ sinβ − sinα/ cosβ
ghττ cosα/ sinβ − sinα/ cosβ − sinα/ cosβ cosα/ sinβ
H0
gH0V V cos(β − α) cos(β − α) cos(β − α) cos(β − α)
gH0tt sinα/ sinβ sinα/ sinβ sinα/ sinβ sinα/ sinβ
gH0bb sinα/ sinβ cosα/ cosβ sinα/ sinβ cosα/ cosβ
gH0τ τ sinα/ sinβ cosα/ cosβ cosα/ cosβ sinα/ sinβ
A
gAV V 0 0 0 0
gAtt cotβ cotβ cotβ cotβ
gAbb − cotβ tanβ − cotβ tanβ
gAττ − cotβ tanβ tanβ − cotβ
TABLE II: Couplings of the neutral scalar and pseudoscalar mass eigenstates in the four types of
2HDM with a Z2 symmetry, following the notation of [112]. The couplings are normalized to those
of the SM Higgs.
These restrictions are easily avoided as follows. First, we assume the 2HDM is near or in
the decoupling limit,
α→ β − π/2 , (14)
where the lightest state in the 2HDM is h, which we identify with the observed 125 GeV
state. In this limit, the fermion couplings of h also become identical to the SM Higgs, while
the gauge boson couplings are very close to SM-like for tan β & 5. All of the properties of h
are determined by just two parameters, tan β and α, and the type of fermion couplings. The
remaining parameters, which control the rest of the Higgs spectrum and its phenomenology,
are in general constrained by the measured production and decays of h [20, 112, 115–122],
but plenty of viable parameter space exists in the decoupling limit.
Second, we add to the 2HDM one complex scalar singlet,
S =1√2
(SR + iSI) ,
which may attain a vacuum expectation value that we implicitly expand around. This singlet
26
only couples to H1,2 in the potential and has no direct Yukawa couplings, acquiring all of
its couplings to SM fermions through its mixing with H1,2. This mixing needs to be small
to avoid spoiling the SM-like nature of h.
Under these two simple assumptions, exotic Higgs decays of the form
h→ ss→ XXY Y or h→ aa→ XXY Y (15)
as well as
h→ aZ → XXY Y (16)
are possible, where s(a) is a (pseudo)scalar mass eigenstates mostly composed of SR(SI)
and X, Y are SM fermions or gauge bosons. We refer to this setup as the 2HDM+S. For
Type II 2HDM+S, a light a corresponds roughly to the R-symmetry limit of the NMSSM
(see section 1.3.7). However, the more general 2HDM framework allows for exotic Higgs
decay phenomenologies that are much more diverse than those usually considered in an
NMSSM-type setup.
To incorporate the already analyzed constraints on 2HDMs into the 2HDM+S (e.g. [122]),
one can imagine adding a decoupled singlet sector to a 2HDM with α, β chosen so as to not
yet be excluded.6 The real and imaginary components of S can be given separate masses, and
small mixings to the 2HDM sector can then be introduced as a perturbation. Approximately
the same constraints on α, β apply to this 2HDM+S, as long as Br(h→ ss/aa/Za) . 10%.
This allows for a wide range of possible exotic Higgs decays. There are some important
differences depending on whether the lightest singlet state with a mass below mh/2 is scalar
or pseudoscalar. We will discuss them in turn.
Light Pseudoscalar (a)
There are two pseudoscalar states in the 2HDM+S, one that is mostly A and one that is
mostly SI . One can choose the mostly-singlet-like pseudoscalar
a = cos θaSI + sin θaA , θa � 1, (17)
to be lighter than the SM-like Higgs. There are two possible exotic Higgs decays: h → Za
for ma < mh −mZ ≈ 35 GeV and h→ aa for ma < mh/2 ≈ 63 GeV.
6 As we have pointed out in §1.3.1, bottomonium decays provide no meaningful constraint on the 2HDM+S
scenario.
27
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
ma @GeVD
sin@ΘaD
FIG. 5: Required mixing angle between the doublet and singlet-sector pseudoscalar for Br(h →
aZ) = 10%, assuming no other exotic Higgs decays and α = π/2− β (decoupling limit).
The partial width Γ(h → Za) is entirely fixed by the 2HDM parameters α, β and the
mixing angle θa. The relevant interaction term in the effective Lagrangian is
Leff ⊃ geff(a∂µh− h∂µa)Zµ , where geff =
√g2 + g′2
2sin(α− β) sin θa, (18)
which gives
Γ(h→ Za) =g2
eff
16π
[(mh +mZ +ma)(mh −mZ +ma)(mh +mZ −ma)(mh −mZ −ma)]3/2
m3hm
2Z
.
(19)
Fig. 5 shows that θa ∼ 0.1 gives Br(h→ Za) ∼ 10% in the absence of other exotic decays.
Two terms in the effective Lagrangian give rise to h→ aa decays:
Leff ⊃ ghAA hAA + λS|S2|2 . (20)
In terms of mass eigenstates, this contains
Leff ⊃ ghAA sin2 θa haa + 4λS vs sin ζ1 cos2 θa haa , (21)
where 〈S〉 = vs is the singlet vacuum expectation value, and the (presumably small) mixing
angle ζ1 determines the singlet scalar content of the SM-like Higgs, see Eq. (22). The
first term by itself can easily give rise to Br(h → aa) ∼ 10% if ghAA ∼ v and θs ∼ 0.1,
see Fig. 3. (Fig. 3 shows the results for Higgs partial widths to scalars, but these are almost
identical to pseudoscalars, except near threshold.) The additional contribution from the
28
second term (even without a singlet scalar below the Higgs mass) means that Br(h → aa)
and Br(h→ Za) can be independently adjusted.
The decay of a to SM fermions proceeds via the A couplings in Table II, multiplied
by sin θa. Therefore, once the type of 2HDM model has been specified, the exotic Higgs
decay phenomenology is entirely dictated by the two exotic branching ratios Br(h → aa)
and Br(h → Za), as well as tan β, which determines a’s fermion couplings. Perturbative
unitarity of the Yukawa couplings sets a lower bound of tan β > 0.28 [122]; we will show
results for tan β as low as ∼ 0.5.
In Figs. 7–9, we show Br(a→ XX), where X is a SM particle. These include O(α2s, α
3s)
radiative corrections for decays to quarks, which can be readily computed [97, 98] (for
details see Appendix A). As mentioned in Section 1.3.1, perturbative QCD can be used for
pseudoscalar masses above ∼ 1 GeV, though the calculation breaks down near quarkonium
states [123]. A detailed investigation of this is beyond the scope of this paper. The results
can be summarized as follows:
• Type I (Fig. 6): Since all fermions couple only to H2, the branching ratios are in-
dependent of tan β. The pseudoscalar couplings to all fermions are proportional to
those of the SM Higgs, all with the same proportionality constant, and the branching
ratios are thus very similar to those of the SM+S model with a complex S and a light
pseudo-scalar a (i.e., for example, proportional to the mass of the final state fermions).
• Type II (Fig. 7): The exotic decay branching ratios are those of NMSSM models.
Unlike Type I models, they now depend on tan β, with decays to down-type fermions
suppressed (enhanced) for down-type fermions for tan β < 1 (tan β > 1).
• Type III (Fig. 8): The branching ratios are tan β dependent. For tan β > 1,
pseudoscalar-decays to leptons are enhanced over decays to quarks. For example,
unlike the NMSSM above the bb-threshold, decays to τ+τ− can dominate over decays
to bb; similarly, above the µ+µ− threshold, decays to µ+µ− can dominate over decays
to heavier, kinematically accessible quark-pairs. This justifies extending, for example,
NMSSM-driven 4τ searches over the entire mass range above the bb-threshold. For
tan β < 1, decays to quarks are enhanced over decays to leptons.
• Type IV (Fig. 9): The branching ratios are tan β dependent. For tan β < 1 and
29
1 10 20 40 602 4 6 810-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
ma [GeV]
BR
(a→SM)
Type I
bb
cc
ττ
μμ
gg
γγ
uu + dd + ss
FIG. 6: Branching ratios of a singlet-like pseudoscalar in the 2HDM+S for Type I Yukawa
couplings. Decays to quarkonia likely invalidate our simple calculations in the shaded regions.
compared to the NMSSM, the pseudoscalar-decays to up-type quarks and leptons can
be enhanced with respect to down-type quarks, so that branching ratios to bb, cc and
τ+τ− can be similar. This opens up the possibility of detecting this model in the 2b2τ
or 2c2τ final state.
Note that the branching ratios are only independent of tan β for Type I, and all types reduce
to Type I for tan β = 1.
A sizable Br(h → Za) would open up additional exciting search channels with leptons
that reconstruct the Z-boson. This is discussed in §10.
For 3mπ < ma < 1 GeV the decay rate calculations suffer large theoretical uncertainties
but the dominant decay channels will likely be muons and hadrons. Below the pion, muon,
and electron thresholds, the pseudoscalar decays dominantly to muons, electrons, and pho-
tons, respectively, except for tan β < 1 in Type II, III and tan β > 1 in Type IV, where
the suppressed lepton couplings can also cause decays to photons to dominate below the
pion threshold. If the pseudoscalar couples to both quarks and leptons, then requiring its
mixing angle to be small enough to not conflict with constraints from e.g. meson decays and
the muon anomalous magnetic moment implies that any allowed decay to two muons (for
2mµ < ma < 3mπ) is likely to have at least a displaced vertex (or be detector-stable), while
any allowed decay to two electrons (for 2me < ma < 2mµ) will be detector stable [124]. For
30
1 10 20 40 602 4 6 810-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
ma [GeV]
BR
(a→SM)
Type II, tan β = 0.5
bb
cc
ττ
μμ
gg
γγ
uu + dd + ss
1 10 20 40 602 4 6 810-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
ma [GeV]
BR
(a→SM)
Type II, tan β = 5
bb
cc
ττ
μμ
gg
γγ
uu + dd + ss
FIG. 7: Branching ratios of a singlet-like pseudoscalar in the 2HDM+S for Type II Yukawa
couplings. Decays to quarkonia likely invalidate our simple calculations in the shaded regions.
1 10 20 40 602 4 6 810-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
ma [GeV]
BR
(a→SM)
Type III, tan β = 0.5
bb
cc
ττ
μμ
gg
γγ
uu + dd + ss
1 10 20 40 602 4 6 810-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
ma [GeV]
BR
(a→SM)
Type III, tan β = 5
bb
cc
ττ
μμ
gg
γγ
uu + dd + ss
FIG. 8: Branching ratios of a singlet-like pseudoscalar in the 2HDM+S for Type III Yukawa
couplings. Decays to quarkonia likely invalidate our simple calculations in the shaded regions.
31
1 10 20 40 602 4 6 810-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
ma [GeV]
BR
(a→SM)
Type IV, tan β = 0.5
bb
cc
ττ
μμ
gg
γγ
uu + dd + ss
1 10 20 40 602 4 6 810-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
ma [GeV]
BR
(a→SM)
Type IV, tan β = 5
bb
cc
ττ
μμ
gg
γγ
uu + dd + ss
FIG. 9: Branching ratios of a singlet-like pseudoscalar in the 2HDM+S for Type IV Yukawa
couplings. Decays to quarkonia likely invalidate our simple calculations in the shaded regions.
pseudoscalars that couple preferentially to leptons, the meson-decay constraints are absent
and prompt decays to muons are allowed; however, allowed decays to electrons will likely
have at least a displaced vertex, and need to be detector-stable as ma is decreased well below
the muon threshold [124].
Light Scalar (s)
We now assume that the mass of the real singlet SR is below mh/2. The scalar Higgs
spectrum, Eq. (13), gets extended by the additional real singlet, which mixes with the
doublet sectorh
H0
s
=
1 0 0
0 cos ζ2 sin ζ2
0 − sin ζ2 cos ζ2
cos ζ1 0 sin ζ1
0 1 0
− sin ζ1 0 cos ζ1
− sinα cosα 0
cosα sinα 0
0 0 1
H0
1,R
H02,R
SR
.
If we assume that the mixing angles ζ1,2 are small, this simplifies toh
H0
s
=
− sinα cosα ζ1
cosα sinα ζ2
(−ζ2 cosα + ζ1 sinα) (−ζ1 cosα− ζ2 sinα) 1
H0
1,R
H02,R
SR
. (22)
In this approximation, h and H have the same Yukawa couplings as in the regular 2HDM but
now contain a small SR component that allows the decay h→ ss. The mostly-singlet state
s on the other hand mixes with some admixture of H01,R and H0
2,R. This can be expressed
32
in more familiar notation by adopting the following parameterization for the small singlet-
doublet mixing angles
ζ1 = −ζ cos(α− α′) , ζ2 = −ζ sin(α− α′) , (23)
=⇒
h
H0
s
=
− sinα cosα −ζ cos(α− α′)
cosα sinα −ζ sin(α− α′)
−ζ sinα′ ζ cosα′ 1
H0
1,R
H02,R
SR
. (24)
The arbitrary angle α′ determines the H01R,2R admixture contained within s, while the small
mixing parameter ζ gives its overall normalization. The couplings of s to SM fields are
now identical to those of the SM-like Higgs h in Table II, scaled down by ζ and with the
replacement α → α′. Since α and α′ can be independently chosen, s can have an even
broader range of branching fractions than a and mirrors the range of possible h-decays
in the regular 2HDM, but without a mass restriction beyond ms < mh/2. Just as for h,
choosing α′ → π2− β amounts to giving s fermion couplings that are SM-Higgs-like (up to
the overall mixing factor ζ). In this limit, the 2HDM+S theory reduces to the SM+S case
discussed in §1.3.1. On the other hand, choosing α′ = β gives the same couplings as the
pseudoscalar case.
The s→ XX branching ratios are computed analogously to the pseudoscalar case, with
further details again given in Appendix A. There is a large range of possible decay phe-
nomenologies. Fig. 10 illustrates some examples that have qualitatively new features com-
pared to the pseudoscalar case, namely the possible dominance of s→ cc decays above the
bb-threshold; similar decay rates to bb and τ+τ−; and similar decay rates to cc and τ+τ−.
Summary
The 2HDM+S allows for a large variety of Higgs decay phenomenologies h → aa →
XXY Y , h → ss → XXY Y , and h → aZ → XXY Y by coupling the SM-like Higgs
h to a singlet-like scalar s or pseudoscalar a. While the singlet’s couplings within each
fermion “family” (down-type quarks, up-type quarks, or leptons) are ranked by their Yukawa
couplings, the relative coupling strength to each family can be adjusted, and arbitrarily so
in the scalar case.
A simple illustration of the rich decay phenomenology is to consider, for example, the
dominant decay mode(s) above the bb threshold. With the three largest Yukawa couplings in
33
1 10 20 40 602 4 6 810-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
ms [GeV]
BR
(s→SM)
Type II, tan β = 0.5, α = 0.1
bb
cc
ττ
μμ
gg
γγ
uu + dd + ss
1 10 20 40 602 4 6 810-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
ms [GeV]
BR
(s→SM)
Type III, tan β = 0.5, α = -1.4
bb
cc
ττ
μμ
gg
γγ
uu + dd + ss
1 10 20 40 602 4 6 810-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
ms [GeV]
BR
(s→SM)
Type IV, tan β = 0.5, α = 0.1
bb
cc
ττ
μμ
gg
γγ
uu + dd + ss
FIG. 10: Singlet scalar branching ratios in the 2HDM+S for different tanβ, α′ and Yukawa
coupling type. These examples illustrate the possible qualitative differences to the pseudoscalar
case, such as dominance of s→ cc decay above bb-threshold; democratic decay to bb and τ+τ−; and
democratic decay to cc and τ+τ−. Hadronization effects likely invalidate our simple calculations
in the shaded regions.
each family being to the bottom, charm, or tau, we demonstrated every possible combination
of dominant decays: similar decays widths to bb, cc, and τ+τ−, dominant decay widths to
any two out of those three, or just one dominant mode. This motivates searches for a large
variety of non-standard four-body final states of exotic Higgs decays.
In §1.3.5, we motivate additional four-body Higgs decay channels, ranked by gauge cou-
pling instead of Yukawa coupling. We will see that even decays to µ+µ− and e+e− can
dominate above the bb-threshold.
34
1.3.3. SM + Fermion
We here discuss exotic Higgs decays that can arise by the addition of a light fermion to
the SM. We focus on two possibilities, neutrino portal-mediated and Higgs portal-mediated
Higgs decays.
The leading interaction of a single Majorana fermion χ with the SM fields is given by the
renormalizable but lepton-number violating “neutrino portal” operator,
LN = yχHL. (25)
If this lepton-number violating coupling is forbidden, the leading coupling between χ and
the SM is through the dimension five Higgs portal operator7,
LχH =κ
2M(χχ+ χ†χ†)|H|2. (26)
This kind of coupling occurs, for instance, in the MSSM when all BSM degrees of freedom
except a bino-like neutralino are integrated out at a high scale. In the MSSM, the states
integrated out to generate this operator are fermionic, with electroweak quantum numbers.
In UV completions where the state being integrated out is bosonic, the operator of Eq. (26)
has effective coupling µ2M2 , where µ is some hidden sector mass scale. This is a consequence
of chiral symmetry, and, as we frequently may have µ�M , may result in the Higgs portal
interaction becoming effective dimension six. As an example of this kind of UV completion,
consider a simple hidden sector consisting of a singlet scalar S together with the fermion χ,
L = (c S +m0)(χχ+ χ†χ†) + V (S) + ζS2|H|2, (27)
and let V (S) allow S to develop a vacuum expectation value, 〈S〉 ≡ µ.8 Then integrating
out the excitations of S around this 〈S〉, with mass ms, we obtain the operator
LχH =c ζµ
m2s
(χχ+ χ†χ†)|H|2. (28)
The mass of the fermion is mχ = m0 + cµ, so either there are large cancellations or cµ ∼
m0 ∼ mχ � ms, and the operator is effective dimension-six.
7 The dipole operator χ†σµνχFµν is also dimension five, but vanishes for a Majorana χ.8 For simplicity, we do not consider the possible interaction S|H|2. This operator could be forbidden in
the presence of a global symmetry taking S → −S, χ → iχ, which would also forbid the mass term
m0(χχ+ χ†χ†).
35
Neutrino portal-mediated Higgs decays
We first consider exotic Higgs decays mediated by the neutrino portal operator, Eq. (25).
The renormalizable neutrino portal coupling occurs in the so-called νSM, the minimal model
that can give mass to the SM neutrinos. Here the SM is extended by sterile neutrinos,
allowing the SM neutrinos to get a mass from a see-saw type mechanism triggered by a
Majorana mass term (M/2)χχ. The operator of Eq. (25) mixes the sterile neutrino χ
with the active SM neutrino ν arising from the SU(2) doublet L. In the absence of large
cancellations in the neutrino mass matrix, sterile neutrinos must be extremely heavy, M � v,
or extremely decoupled, y � ye � 1. In this limit, the decay h → χν is negligible, even
if kinematically allowed. However, the authors of [54, 125] show that active-sterile mixing
angles as large as several percent are possible, with (accidental) cancellations among the
Yukawa couplings still allowing for small active neutrino masses. Mixing angles of the order
of a few percent may imply a sizable partial width for h→ νχ,
Γ(h→ νχ) =|y|2
8πmh
(1−
m2χ
m2h
)3/2
, (29)
where mχ is the mass of the sterile neutrino χ. For mh < 130 GeV, neutrino data and
pion decay constraints on W -lepton coupling universality still allow the partial width into
h→ νχ to exceed that into h→ bb, see [54] for a detailed discussion (see also [57]).
The mass mixing between sterile (right-handed (RH)) neutrinos and active (left-handed
(LH)) neutrinos introduces couplings of the RH neutrinos to W and Z gauge bosons. There-
fore, in the region of parameter space for which the active-sterile mixing angle Θ is close to
its phenomenological upper bound, the RH neutrinos decay promptly into χ→ `W ∗ → `ff ′
and χ→ νZ∗ → νff , where f and f ′ are either a lepton or a quark of the SM, and with all
branching ratios fixed by the electroweak quantum numbers of the SM fermions. In general
χ may have non-zero mixings with one, two, or all three SM neutrinos.
Higgs portal-mediated Higgs decays
We next turn to the higher-dimension decays, mediated by the higher-dimension operator
of Eq. (26). After electroweak symmetry breaking, this operator yields a coupling λh(χχ+
χ†χ†), with effective Yukawa coupling given by λ = κv/2M . The resulting partial width
into χ is then
Γ(h→ χχ) =mh
8π
(κvM
)2(
1−4m2
χ
m2h
)3/2
. (30)
36
M = 1 TeVM = 2.5 TeV
M = 5 TeV
M = 10 TeV
M = 20 TeV
0 10 20 30 40 50 600.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
mΧqHGeVL
Br
Hh®
ΧΧ
Lk
FIG. 11: Higgs branching fraction into Majorana fermions χ resulting from the partial width of
Eq. (30), as a function of the Higgs portal scale M and the mass of the fermion mχ. We fix the
coupling κ to be equal to 1.
As the effective Yukawa coupling λ is only competing with the small b-quark Yukawa, sub-
stantial branching fractions Br(h → χχ) can be obtained even for Higgs portal scales M
significantly above a TeV, as shown in Fig. 11, where we fix κ = 1 for simplicity.
The kinds of signatures that are realized depends on how χ decays. If the Higgs portal
coupling of Eq. (26) is the only interaction that the new fermion χ possesses, then χ is
absolutely stable, and the resulting Higgs decay is invisible. In general, however, χ will
possess additional interactions. If these interactions preserve the Z2 symmetry taking χ→
−χ, then χ will remain stable. On the other hand, if the Z2 is violated by a dimension-six
operator of the form
Lf =1
Λ2χf1f2f3 (31)
where f1f2f3 is a gauge-invariant combination of quarks and leptons, then χ will undergo
the three-body decay χ → f1f2f3. Some of these decays are familiar from previous study
of R-parity violating neutralino decays in the MSSM, namely those involving holomorphic
combinations of SM fermion fields (we suppress spinor structures for simplicity),
λijkLiLjeck, λ′ijkLiQjd
ck, λ′′ijku
cidcjdck. (32)
One may also consider the non-holomorphic operators [126]
κijkQiQjdc†k, κ′ijkL
†iQju
ck, κ′′ijkuid
c†jeck. (33)
37
Another flavor-violating possibility appearing at dimension six is the radiative decay χ→ γν,
mediated by
Oγν = χHLiσµνBµν . (34)
While this operator can yield two-body final states, it naturally scales with a loop factor.
All of these lepton and/or baryon-number violating decays necessarily have nontrivial flavor
structure, and the combinations of operators that appear depends on the flavor structure
of the UV theory. Unlike the SM plus scalar interactions considered in §1.3.1 and §1.3.2 or
the neutrino-portal decays discussed earlier, the possible decays of χ are not determined by
the Higgs coupling to the fermion, but require additional interactions, involving the flavor
structure of the theory.
To summarize, the exotic Higgs signatures from a single additional (Majorana) fermion
species are then Higgs decays to either invisible particles, or to one or more four- or six-
body final states, where the six bodies form two three-body resonances of equal mass. When
neutrinos are among the final state partons, the final states will include missing energy, and
the resonances will not be reconstructable. This is always the case in the possible four-body
final states where neutrinos are always involved, and is sometimes the case in the six-body
final states.
1.3.4. SM + 2 Fermions
It is worth generalizing the previous discussion to the case with two new singlet fermions
χ1 and χ2. The Majorana mass matrix for these two fermions has three parameters, and
the dimension-five Higgs portal operators form a matrix
Lχ =cijΛχiχj|H|2. (35)
After electroweak symmetry breaking, the BSM fermions form two mass eigenstates χ1 and
χ2, with mass m2 > m1. If we take relatively light fermions mh > 2m2, the decays h→ χ2χ2,
h → χ1χ2 and h → χ1χ1 are all possible. This kind of interaction appears in, for instance,
the NMSSM (see §1.3.8.), where χ2 and χ1 are mostly bino- and singlino-like, respectively,
and the higher-dimension Higgs portal coupling of Eq. (35) results after integrating out
the charged Higgsinos. It can also arise in (possibly supersymmetric) Hidden Valleys; see
§1.3.10.
38
Let us first consider the case where there is a Z2 symmetry which takes χi → −χi. In
this case, χ1 is stable, but the heavier new state decays as χ2 → χ1 +X. If the Higgs portal
coupling of Eq. (35) is the only coupling of the χi, then the decay will proceed through an
off-shell Higgs, χ2 → h∗χ1 → (ff , gg, γγ)χ1. In this case, branching fractions into different
SM partons will be determined by the Higgs couplings, and will typically result in Higgs
decays to E/T plus one or two non-resonant quark-antiquark, lepton-anti-lepton, or gluon
pairs, depending on the available phase space.
If the χi have additional interactions besides their coupling to the Higgs, such as a dipole
coupling to the hypercharge field strength,
Lχ =1
µχ†1σµνχ2B
µν (36)
or a coupling to the Z boson induced by mixing with states transforming under SU(2)L,
Lχ = hijχ†iσ
µχjZµ, (37)
then other decay patterns are possible. The dipole operator allows the decays χ2 → γχ1,
as well as χ2 → χ1Z if m2 −m1 > mZ (phase space suppression renders decays through an
off-shell Z largely irrelevant when m2 − m1 < mZ). The operator of Eq. (37) also yields
χ2 → χ1Z when phase space allows, or if m2−m1 < mZ , will mediate the three-body decays
χ2 → ffχ1 with branching ratios set by the Z branching fractions.
Note that a common feature of all these decays is that the pairs of SM partons have
a kinematic endpoint at mff ,gg,γγ < m2 − m1, and that the transverse mass of the visible
partons and the E/T is bounded from above.
The Z boson coupling can arise in NMSSM-like models, see e.g. §1.3.7, or in models with
additional RH neutrinos [55, 56] that mix with the SM neutrinos. In the latter case, the
couplings hij in (37) are sufficiently small that the neutrino decay lengths are macroscopic.
In the former case, the couplings can instead be larger, and the Majorana fermions can have a
prompt decay into SM fermions. Additional examples are models with a fourth generation of
fermions where the two fourth generation neutrinos do not mix with the SM neutrinos [127–
129]. In these models, the mass range M1 & 30 GeV, M2 −M1 . 20 GeV is allowed by
LEP measurements of the Z width and LEP bounds on e+e− → χ1χ2, χ2χ2 [127]. In this
region of parameter space, h → χ2χ2, as well as h → χ1χ1, can have a sizable branching
ratio [128]. Furthermore, the heavier neutrino χ2 can decay promptly via χ2 → Z∗χ1, while
the lighter neutrino χ1 is long-lived.
39
If the Z2 parity is violated, allowing χ1 to decay, Higgs decays to as many as ten partons
may result. We will not consider such complex decays in this work, but one should bear in
mind that they can occur.
Many models with new fermion species also contain new bosonic degrees of freedom,
which, if light, open new possibilities for the decays of the χi. We will see examples of this
in §1.3.8.
1.3.5. SM + Vector
Preliminaries
An additional U(1)D gauge symmetry added to the SM is theoretically well-motivated
and occurs in many top-down and bottom-up extensions of the SM. The U(1)D vector
boson (the “dark photon” or the “dark-Z”) is usually referred to as A′, Z ′, γD, or ZD
in the literature and various possibilities exist to connect the additional U(1)D to the SM
(see e.g. [130–133] for reviews). In §1.3.10, we will discuss more complicated hidden-valley
phenomenology, involving non-abelian gauge symmetries and/or composite states [31, 134].
Here we focus on Higgs decays that involve an A′, with the A′ mass between ∼MeV–63 GeV.
A sub-GeV A′ has generated a lot of interest in the last few years due to anomalies related
to dark matter [135–138] and as an explanation of the discrepancy between the calculated
and measured muon anomalous magnetic moment [139].
The U(1)D can couple to the SM sector via a small gauge kinetic mixing term
12εF ′µνB
µν [140–142] between the dark photon and the hypercharge gauge boson. This renor-
malizable interaction can be generated at a high scale in a grand unified theory or in the
context of string theory with a wide range of ε ∼ 10−17 − 10−2 [140, 143–150]. This term
effectively gives SM matter a dark milli-charge, made more obvious by a GL(2, R) field re-
definition Bµ → Bµ − εA′µ which yields canonical kinetic terms, and allows for dark photon
decay to SM particles and possible experimental detection. To avoid the tight constraints
on new long-range forces, a ‘dark Higgs’ S with a non-zero vacuum expectation value can
give a non-zero mass to the A′. An A′ with a sub-GeV mass can be probed at beam dumps
and colliders, and with measurements of the muon anomalous magnetic moment, supernova
cooling, and rare meson decays [139, 150–165], see Fig. 12 and e.g. [133] for a recent review.
A broken U(1)D can also lead to exotic Higgs decays, especially if there is mixing between
40
the two Higgs sectors. In this context we refer to the corresponding vector field as ZD.
The possibility of h→ ZDZD through Higgs-to-dark-Higgs mixing or h→ ZZD through
Z-ZD mass mixing (which is also induced by the above-mentioned kinetic mixing) was
discussed in [166] and [164, 165], respectively, with both occurring, for example, in hidden
valley models [31, 134].
To examine the range of possible exotic Higgs phenomena due to a U(1)D sector we
examine the model of [166], but with mh set to 125 GeV and allowing for the full range
of dark Higgs and dark-Z masses relevant to exotic Higgs decay phenomenology.9 This
includes Higgs-to-dark-Higgs mixing and kinetic mixing between the B boson and the dark
vector ZD, but no explicit mass mixing between the Z and ZD.10 We will assume prompt
ZD decays, which requires mZD & 10 MeV given the current constraints shown in Fig. 12.
For mZD > 10 GeV, the most stringent constraints come from precision electroweak
measurements;11 we have verified the results in [168]. These constraints are largely driven
by the tree-level shift to the Z mass,12 and limit ε . 0.02 for mZD < mh/2.
Also shown in Fig. 12 is a new constraint we derived by recasting the CMS 20+5 fb−1 h→
ZZ∗ analysis [176], as described in §10. (We obtain a similar bound from the corresponding
ATLAS analysis [177].) This new bound is already almost competitive with the Electroweak
Precision Measurement Bounds (green region labelled “EWPM”) for some masses, and can
be optimized further with a dedicated search. We expect LHC14 with 300 fb−1 to be sensitive
to Br(h → ZZD) as low as ∼ 10−4 or 10−5. This would make the LHC the best probe of
dark vector kinetic mixing for 10 GeV . mZD. mh/2 in the foreseeable future.
Model Details
The model is defined by a U(1)D gauge sector and a SM singlet S that has unit charge
under the U(1)D. The kinetic terms of the hypercharge and U(1)D gauge bosons (adopting
9 Ref. [167] appeared while this work was being completed, performing a similar analysis with a different
focus on constraining the couplings of the extended Higgs potential for relatively low mZD< 5 GeV.
10 The constraints shown in Fig. 12 are altered in the presence of such pure mass mixing, which requires
additional Higgs doublets that also carry dark charge. The resulting ZD → SM decays would be more Z-
like and lead to additional constraints from rare meson decays as well as new parity-violating interactions
[164]. However, we stress that the exotic Higgs phenomenology would not be qualitatively different.11 We thank Adam Falkowski for useful correspondence on the electroweak precision bounds shown in the
green “EWPM” region in Fig. 12.12 Additional and more model-dependent constraints arise when mZD
is approximately equal to the center-
of-mass energy of e+-e− experiments [168].
41
10-3 10-2 10-1 1 10110-5
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
mZD@GeVD
Ε
U70
PROMPT
NON-PROMPT
E141
E774
EWPM
aΜ, 5 Σ
aΜ,±2 Σ favored
ae
BaBarKLOE
A1
HADES
APEX
Orsay
BrHh®
ZZ
D L=10 -
6
10 -5
10 -4
10 -3
CMS
FIG. 12: Constraints on ε,mZD for pure kinetic mixing (no additional source of Z-ZD mass mixing)
for mZD ∼MeV–10 GeV. The black dashed line separates prompt (cτ < 1µm) from non-prompt
ZD decays. The three blue lines are contours of Br(h → ZZD) of 10−4, 10−5, 10−6 respectively.
Shaded regions are existing experimental constraints [139, 151–163, 168–175], see e.g. [133] for a
recent review. The red shaded region “CMS” is a new limit we derived by recasting the CMS
20+5 fb−1 h → ZZ∗ analysis [176], as described in §10. (We obtain a similar bound from the
corresponding ATLAS analysis [177].) This new bound can be optimized with a dedicated LHC
measurement, likely improving upon the Electroweak Precision Measurement Bounds (green region
labelled “EWPM” [168]) for some masses.
42
mostly the notation of [164]) are
Lgauge = −1
4BµνB
µν − 1
4ZDµνZ
µνD +
1
2
ε
cos θWBµνZ
µνD , (38)
with Bµν = ∂µBν − ∂νBµ, ZDµν = ∂µZDν − ∂νZDµ, and cos θW = g/√g2 + g′2 is the usual
Weinberg mixing angle. The hatted quantities are fields before diagonalizing the kinetic
term. The Higgs potential is
V0 = −µ2|H|2 + λ|H|4 − µ2D|S|2 + λD|S|4 + ζ|S|2|H|2. (39)
The dark Higgs S acquires a vacuum expectation value and gives ZD, which ‘eats’ the
pseudoscalar component of S, some mass mZD . There are two connections between the dark
and the SM sectors: the gauge kinetic mixing ε and the Higgs mixing ζ. The phenomenology
depends on which one dominates.
The gauge kinetic term is diagonalized by transforming the gauge fields ZD
B
=
1 0
− ε
cos θW1
ZD
B
, (40)
where we always work to lowest order in the small ε. B therefore gets replaced by B +
εcos θW
ZD, giving all SM fermions a dark milli-charge proportional to their hypercharge, while
particle-couplings to B remain unchanged when transforming to B.
The ZD and Z gauge boson mass terms are
Lmass =1
8w2g2
D(ZDµ)2 +1
8v2(−gW 3
µ + g′Bµ)2 , (41)
where gD is the gauge coupling of U(1)D and w is the vacuum expectation value of S.
Writing in terms of canonically normalized gauge fields this becomes
Lmass =1
8w2g2
D(ZDµ)2 +1
8v2(−gW 3
µ + g′Bµ + g′ε
cos θWZDµ)2. (42)
The SM gauge boson Zµ = − sin θWBµ + cos θWW3µ is no longer a mass eigenstate:
Lmass =1
2m2ZD
(ZDµ)2 +1
2m2Z(Zµ − ε tan θWZDµ)2. (43)
To leading order in ε the mass eigenstates with masses mZ ,mZD +O(ε2) are
Z = Z + εZZD
ZD = ZD − εZZ, where εZ =ε tan θWm
2Z
m2Z −m2
ZD
. (44)
43
(Henceforth, we omit the tildes and will refer to the mass eigenstates unless otherwise noted.)
Therefore, there are interaction terms of the form 2εZm2ZD
vhZµZ
µD and ε2Z
m4ZD
m2ZvhZDµZ
µD which
lead to h → ZDZ and h → ZDZD decays (though the latter is strongly suppressed), see
Fig. 14.
If ZD is the lightest state in the dark sector it will decay to SM particles. This is entirely
due to the kinetic mixing in Eq. (38), but in the basis of Eq. (44) it is due to the dark
milli-charge of SM fermions and the accompanying mass mixing with the Z. Explicitly, the
coupling of ZD to SM fermions is
L ⊃ gZDff ZµD fγµf, (45)
where
gZDff = −g′ ε
cos θWY − ε tan θW
m2Z
m2Z −m2
ZD
1√g′2 + g2
(g2T3 − g′2Y
). (46)
The first and second term come from dark milli-charge and Z-ZD mass mixing, respectively.
This coupling is dominantly photon-like, up to deviations ∼ O(m2ZD/m2
Z):
gZDff = εg′{−(T3 + Y ) cos θW
(1 +
m2ZD
m2Z
)+
Y
cos θW
m2ZD
m2Z
+O(m4ZD
m4Z
)}(47)
For mZD & GeV the ZD, branching ratios are easily computed to lowest order and without
QCD corrections, and are shown in Fig. 13 (a). For mZD . GeV, non-perturbative QCD
effects are important. They can be computed from the QCD contribution to the imaginary
part of the electromagnetic two-point function, which in turn is determined from cross-
section measurements of e+e− → hadrons [178]. The resulting branching ratios are shown
in Fig. 13 (b).
The most important qualitative difference to the scalar decays considered in §1.3.1 and
1.3.2 is that branching ratios are ordered by gauge coupling instead of Yukawa coupling,
meaning decays to e+e− and µ+µ− remain large above the τ thresholds. Prompt ZD decay
requires ε & 10−5 − 10−3, as indicated in Fig. 12, which summarizes the constraints on ZD
kinetic mixing for our regime of interest.
The Higgs potential is minimized by vacuum expectation values of H0 and S
H0 =1√2
(h+ v) , S =1√2
(s+ w) , (48)
where to leading order in the small Higgs mixing ζ,
v =µ√λ− ζ µ2
D
4λD√λµ≈ 246 GeV and w =
µD√λD− ζ µ2
4λ√λDµD
. (49)
44
e+e-, Μ+Μ-
Τ+Τ-
c c
b b
light hadrons
ΝΝ
10 20 30 40 50 600.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
mZD
Br
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.00.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
mZD @GeVD
BrHZD®SML
e+e-
Μ+Μ-
hadrons
(a) (b)
FIG. 13: (a) Branching ratios for ZD decay, to lowest order and without QCD corrections, assum-
ing decays to the dark sector are kinematically forbidden. Hadronization effects likely invalidate
our simple calculation in the shaded region. (b) Branching ratios for ZD decay for mZD . 3 GeV,
including non-perturbative QCD effects.
The mass eigenstates
h = h− εhs
s = s+ εhh, where εh = ζµµD
2√λλD|µ2 − µ2
D|, (50)
have masses
m2h = 2µ2 − ζ µ
2D
λDand m2
s = 2µ2D − ζ
µ2
λ. (51)
(Again we drop the tildes from now on and always refer to the mass eigenstates.) The
effective Lagrangian contains terms of the form κhss where κ = ζ(m3h+2mhm
2s)/(√
16λ(m2h−
m2s)), and 2εh
m2ZD
whZDµZ
µD, which lead to exotic Higgs decays h → ss and h → ZDZD, see
Fig. 14. The vertex hsZD is present but is suppressed by both mixings.
We can now discuss the relevant limits of this theory for exotic Higgs phenomenology:
• Gauge mixing dominates:
For ε� ζ the dominant exotic Higgs decay is h→ ZZD. To leading order in m2ZD/m2
Z
45
h
Z
ZD
M∝ ε hs
ZD
ZD
, h
s
s
M∝ ζ
FIG. 14: The dominant exotic Higgs decays in the SM+V model. The h→ ZZD matrix element
is proportional to the gauge kinetic mixing ε, while h → ZDZD and h → ss are controlled by the
Higgs mixing parameter ζ. The vertex hsZD is present but suppressed by both mixings.
the partial width is
Γ(h→ ZZD) =ε2 tan2 θW
16π
m2ZD
(m2h −m2
Z)3
m3hm
2Zv
2. (52)
This agrees with the full analytical expression to ∼ 10% for mh−mZ−mZD > 1 GeV.
Fig. 12 shows contours of Br(h → ZZD) = 10−4, 10−5, 10−6. The largest Br allowed
by indirect electroweak precision constraints is ∼ 3× 10−4.
In this regime, the SM+V theory leads to the ff+Z exotic Higgs signatures discussed
in §10. As outlined on page 41, dedicated LHC searches for this signal at Run I and II
can improve upon the electroweak precision limit. For very light ZD above the electron
threshold this would also lead to lepton-jets + Z signatures, see §16 [149].
Note that Γ(h → ZZD) ∝ ε2. In addition, the dark vector will also contribute at the
same order to the Γ(h → Z`+`−) partial width (in the non-resonant region) via its
interference with Z∗ in h→ ZZ∗ → Z`+`−. Since kinetic mixing shows up in both ZD
production and decay, this will lead to O(ε2) deviations in the dilepton spectrum and
may represent a discovery opportunity, particularly for mZD > mh − mZ . We leave
this for future investigation.
• Higgs mixing dominates:
When ζ � ε and Higgs mixing dominates then h → ZDZD, ss are both possible,
depending on the spectrum of the dark sector. (We still assume that ε is large enough
46
for ZD to decay promptly.) The partial decay widths to leading order in ζ are
Γ(h→ ZDZD) =ζ2
32π
v2
mh
√1−
4m2ZD
m2h
(m2h + 2m2
ZD)2 − 8(m2
h −m2ZD
)m2ZD
(m2h −m2
s)2
,
Γ(h→ ss) =ζ2
32π
v2
mh
√1− 4m2
s
m2h
(m2h + 2m2
s)2
(m2h −m2
s)2. (53)
Different regions of of the (mZD ,ms) mass plane are shown in Fig. 15, along with the
size of the Higgs mixing ζ ∼ 10−3 − 10−2 required for Br(h → ZDZD, ss) = 10% and
the relative rates of h→ ss vs h→ ZDZD decays when both are allowed.
In Region A (ms > mh/2,mZD < mh/2) the only relevant exotic Higgs decay is
h → ZDZD. This allows for spectacular h → 2`2`′ decays (`, `′ = e or µ) with a
reconstructed ZD resonance above the τ - or b-thresholds.
Region B allows exotic Higgs decays both to ZDZD and ss. The presence of two
resonances below half the Higgs mass gives a rich exotic decay phenomenology. h →
ss → 4ZD occurs with roughly equal probability as h → ZDZD and can result in
spectacular final states with as many as 8 leptons. Note that, in this simplified model,
there is no corresponding ZD → ss decay in the lower right corner of that mass plane.
However, a (pseudo)scalar pair could be produced from dark vector decay in e.g. a
2HDM+V framework, resulting in final states with as many as 8 b-quarks.
Already with current data, limits of Br(h→ ZDZD) . 10−4 can be achieved, see §11.
Each of the above cases may, for suitable masses, also lead to interesting ‘lepton-jet’
signatures, see §16.
• Intermediate Regime:
Here the decays induced by kinetic and Higgs mixing are comparable. For example,
Fig. 12 shows that ε ∼ 10−2 is not excluded for some values of mZD , allowing Br(h→
ZZD) ∼ 10−4. The branching ratios for h→ ZDZD, ss will be similar if ζ ∼ 10−4.
Summary
In summary, the SM+V setup allows for many different kinds of exotic Higgs decays,
including h→ ZZD, h→ ZDZD, and h→ ss, with ZD → ff , and s→ ff or s→ ZDZD →
(ff)(ff). This leads to final states of Z+(ff), (ff)(ff), and ((ff)(ff))((ff)(ff)), where
parentheses around a set of particles denotes a resonance (all final-state particles combined
47
6
7
8
2
4
68 10
10
20
30 40 50
8.25
8.25
9
9
A: h ® ZDZD onlyC: no exotic
higgs decays
D: h ® ss only
B
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0
50
100
150
200
250
mZD @GeVD
ms@GeVD
Region B: Γ(h→ss)Γ(h→ss)+Γ(h→ZDZD)
0.40.5
0.6 0.7 0.8s ® ZDZD
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
mZD @GeVD
ms@GeVD
FIG. 15: Left: mass plane in the SM+V model with different exotic Higgs decays for ζ � ε
(i.e. when the mixing between the Higgs and dark-Higgs dominates over the kinetic mixing). The
black contours are the values of ζ×103 required for Br(h→ ZDZD, ss) = 10%. Region A is the case
examined by [166] (the dotted red line indicates mh = ms). Region C has no exotic Higgs decays.
Region D reproduces the SM+S model of §1.3.1. Region B has both h → ss and h → ZDZD
decays, with the h → ss fraction of exotic decays shown on the right. In the upper left shaded
region, s→ ZDZD is the dominant decay mode of the dark scalar. This allows the Higgs to decay
to up to 8 SM fermions.
will form the Higgs resonance). Since the ZD (although not the s) couples to the fermions’
gauge charges, final states with several light leptons have sizable branching fractions over
the entire kinematically permitted mass range. Certain spectra can produce interesting
lepton-jet signatures.
48
1.3.6. MSSM
In this section, we study the possible Higgs exotic decays in the framework of the Minimal
Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) with R-symmetry.
The Higgs sector of the MSSM has been extensively studied in the light of the recent
Higgs discovery. In particular a Higgs at around 125 GeV with SM-like properties can be
realized in the decoupling limit where the additional scalars and pseudoscalars are heavy
(ma,H,H± & 300 GeV). In this regime, exotic decays of the type h → A0Z, h → HH, h →
A0A0, h → H±W are kinematically forbidden (here A0 denotes the CP-odd scalar).13 In
general, the regime mA ≤ mh/2 is highly constrained. This is due to the fact that the masses
of the H, A0, and H± scalars of the MSSM are closely tied to one another. In particular,
at the tree level m2H± = m2
A + m2W , leading to a charged Higgs boson already excluded by
LEP searches, for mA . 60 GeV.
Additional Higgs exotic decays could be realized if some of the sparticles are lighter than
the Higgs boson. This possibility is however very constrained by LEP and LHC searches.
In particular, assuming a LEP bound at around 100 GeV for electrically charged sparticles,
the only possible Higgs exotic decays, in the framework of the MSSM, are to sneutrinos or
to neutralinos.14 However, in view of the LEP lower bound on the masses of the left handed
sleptons, which are related through SU(2) symmetry to the sneutrino masses, the decay to
sneutrinos are generically kinematically closed.
The decay of the Higgs into neutralinos h→ χiχj [182] is therefore typically the only ac-
cessible decay (here, as elsewhere, we suppress the superscript “0” on neutralinos to stream-
line notation). This decay mode is most easily realized in models with non-universal gaugino
masses, for which the universality relation M1 ∼ M2
2∼ M3
7at the electroweak scale is relaxed,
allowing light LSPs while still satisfying the LEP and LHC bounds on chargino and gluino
masses. As neutralinos which couple to the Higgs boson also typically couple to the Z, the
main constraint on Higgs decays to neutralinos comes from the precise LEP measurements
of the invisible and total widths of the Z boson, for mχi + mχj < mZ . However, as Fig.
13 SM-like Higgs bosons can also be achieved in a corner of parameter space where the additional scalar and
pseudoscalars are lighter than mh (see for example [37, 179, 180]). Low energy flavor observables like
b→ sγ, however, set important constraints on this region of parameter space [39, 181]. Furthermore, the
decays of the SM-like Higgs into lighter scalars are still not kinematically accessible.14 Light sbottoms are another possibility, but this is now almost entirely ruled out [44].
49
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.10.3
0
0
20 40 60 80 100
100
150
200
250
M1 @GeVD
Μ@G
eVD
0.05
0.10.2
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.10.3
0
0
20 40 60 80 100
100
150
200
250
M1 @GeVD
Μ@G
eVD
(a) (b)
FIG. 16: Branching ratios of the Higgs into neutralinos: Br(h → χ1χ1) and Br(h → χ1χ2) are
shown in blue and red, respectively. The yellow region is the region excluded by the LEP bound on
the Z invisible width. The region below the dashed green line is the region with a lightest chargino
below the LEP bound of ∼ 100 GeV. The input parameters are tanβ = 10 and M2 = 300 GeV
(left), M2 = 150 GeV (right).
16 shows, for mainly bino LSPs, it is possible to accommodate a sizable branching ratio for
the decay h → χ1χ1 while still maintaining compatibility with the LEP Z measurements
(see also [183–187] for recent studies). The parameter space for which h → χ1χ2 is open
is strongly constrained by both LEP Z measurements (the yellow region in Fig. 16 is the
region excluded by the LEP measurement of the Z invisible width) and chargino searches.
In summary, the MSSM generally can now only provide for Higgs decays into neutralinos.
These neutralinos may either be detector-stable, in which case the Higgs decay is invisible
(as discussed in §2), or, in models with gauge-mediated supersymmetry breaking, they may
decay within the detector to photon-gravitino pairs [72] (as studied in §13). Higgs decays
to other sparticles or to other (pseudo-)scalars in the extended MSSM Higgs sector are now
strongly constrained by the LEP and LHC experiments.
In the following, we will investigate the possible Higgs exotic decays in the framework
of the Next to Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (NMSSM). In this model, both
the Higgs as well as the neutralino sectors are significantly richer, which provides us with a
50
larger set of possibilities.
1.3.7. NMSSM with exotic Higgs decay to scalars
The field content of the NMSSM is very similar to the MSSM; it differs merely by the
addition of a singlet superfield S, which is introduced to address the µ-problem of the
MSSM (for an exhaustive review of the NMSSM see e.g. [188]). The superpotential and soft
supersymmetry-breaking terms of the Higgs sector are given by
W = λSHuHd +κ
3S3 , (54)
Vsoft = m2Hd|Hd|2 +m2
Hu|Hu|2 +m2S|S|2 + (−λAλHuHdS +
1
3AκκS
3 + h.c.). (55)
The phenomenology of this model can be easily connected to the simplified models that
we have reviewed in previous sections. If we disregard the Higgsinos and singlino (which if
heavy are largely irrelevant for Higgs phenomenology) the Higgs sector of the NMSSM is
essentially that of a Type II ‘2HDM + Scalar’ model (see §1.3.2), where we can immediately
identify Hd, Hu as H1, H2.
The singlet scalar S = 1√2(SR + iSI) can obtain a vacuum expectation value 〈S〉 = vs,
generating an effective µ parameter µeff = λvs. The presence of additional light singlet
scalars, pseudoscalars, and fermions allows for exotic Higgs decays within the NMSSM. In
this section we discuss decays to light CP-even scalars s or pseudoscalars a of the form
h→ ss , h→ aa , h→ aZ. (56)
Decays to fermions are covered in the next section, §1.3.8.
There are three ways of realizing the above decays within the NMSSM. In each case, the
exotic Higgs decay phenomenology is a subset of the Type II 2HDM+S discussed in §1.3.2,
with some additional restrictions (like −π/2 < α < 0).
The first is an accidental cancellation resulting in a light singlet-like s or a. Recent
examples of such models have been found in a parameter scan [189] (for recent studies on
the constraint on Br(h → ss, aa), e.g., see [190]). By choosing λ, κ ∼ 0.5, |Aλ| . 150 GeV
and Aκ ∼ 0 the lightest pseudoscalar can satisfy ma < mh/2 for a SM-like Higgs h, with
Br(h → aa) or Br(h → Za) ∼ O(0.1). On the other hand, λ, κ ∼ 0.5, Aλ ∼ 0 − 200 GeV
51
and Aκ ∼ −500 GeV can result in a singlet-like light Higgs satisfying ms < mh/2 with
Br(h→ ss) ∼ O(0.1).
There are also two symmetry limits resulting in light pseudoscalars, namely the R-limit
and the PQ-limit of the NMSSM. The R-symmetry limit is realized for Aλ, Aκ → 0 [70,
191, 192], defined by the scalar field transformations
Hu → Hu eiϕR , Hd → Hd e
iϕR , S → S eiϕR . (57)
This global symmetry is spontaneously broken by the Higgs vacuum expectation values
vu, vd, vs, which results in a massless Nambu-Goldstone boson (the R-axion) appearing in
the spectrum:
AR ∝ v sin 2β A+ vs SI , (58)
where
A = cos β HuI + sin β HdI , v =√v2u + v2
d .
In most of the parameter space vs = µeff
λ� v sin 2β, making AR mostly singlet-like. To
avoid cosmological constraints on a massless axion and to help stabilize the vacuum, the
R-symmetry is usually taken to be approximate. This leads to a light, mostly singlet-
like pseudo-goldstone boson, and depending on the exact parameters chosen opens up the
possibility of h→ aa for a = AR. Through its A component, a then decays to SM fermions,
dominantly bb and τ+τ− above the respective thresholds (see Fig. 7).
For κ, Aκ → 0 [106, 193–201], there is an approximate PQ-symmetry:
Hu → Hu eiϕPQ , Hd → Hd e
iϕPQ , S → S e−2iϕPQ . (59)
The PQ-symmetry limit is also shared by some other singlet-extensions of the MSSM, includ-
ing the nearly-MSSM (nMSSM) [202] and the general NMSSM (e.g., see [188]). Analogously
to the R-limit there is a PQ-axion,
APQ ∝ v sin 2β A− 2 vs SI . (60)
Exotic Higgs decays to this pseudoscalar, and even the singlet-like scalar, are in principle
possible. However, formh = 125 GeV, exotic Higgs decays to (pseudo-)scalars are generically
not dominant in the PQ-limit. Instead, decays to binos and singlinos can dominate. This
will be discussed in the next subsection.
52
1.3.8. NMSSM with exotic Higgs decay to fermions
While both the R- and the PQ-limit lead to a light pseudoscalar as discussed in §1.3.7, the
PQ-limit with mh = 125 GeV typically leads to different exotic Higgs decay phenomenology,
in which decays to fermions can be as or more important than decays to scalars [52, 53].
When vs � vu, vd, the dominant tree-level contributions to the masses of the singlet-like
scalars and singlino-like fermion S are [52, 195, 203]
m2s ∼ κvS (Aκ + 4κvS) , m2
a ∼ −3κvSAκ , mS ∼ 2κvS . (61)
The pseudoscalar a is light in both the R- and PQ-limits, but in the PQ-limit s and S must
be light as well. This cannot be realized in the R-limit, since vacuum stability for small κ
requires Aλ ∼ µ tan β, strongly breaking R-symmetry.
This abundance of possible light singlet-like states opens up many different exotic Higgs
decays, giving phenomenology that is qualitatively unlike the decays in the R-limit. In the
R-limit, the coupling of the SM-like Higgs to the R-axion eigenstate is ghaa ∼ O (m2h/v
2S)×v
[70, 191]. The trilinear coupling ghaa is equivalent to the mass parameter µv of Fig. 3, and as
can be seen from that figure, vs as large as 10mh can still yield a sizeable branching fraction
Br(h→ aa) ∼ 0.1.
The corresponding couplings in the PQ-limit instead scale as [52, 53]
ghaa, ghss ∼ O(λ2ε′v), (62)
where
ε′ =
∣∣∣∣ Aλµeff tan β
− 1
∣∣∣∣ < mZ
µeff tan β(63)
is required by vacuum stability (avoiding a runaway in the S-direction). For a given µeff ,
small λ corresponds to small singlet-doublet mixing and mostly SM-like Higgs phenomenol-
ogy. Correspondingly, parameter scans using NMSSMTools [204–207] indicate that λ . 0.2
dominates the surviving parameter space in the PQ-limit (κ � λ) (see App. B). It is
thus common in the PQ-limit to obtain ghaa, ghss � v, suppressing exotic Higgs decays to
(pseudo-)scalars. However, the PQ-limit allows the SM-like Higgs boson to decay into a pair
of light neutralinos h→ χiχj [52, 53, 208]. The relevant vertex couplings for a singlino-like
χ1 and a bino-like χ2 are [52, 53]
Chχ1χ2 ∼ O(g1v
vs
), Chχ1χ1 ∼ O
(λv
vs tan β
). (64)
53
h
�1
�2
�1
a, s
f
f
h
�1
�2
�1
�
(a) (b)
FIG. 17: Two significant fermionic decay topologies of the SM-like Higgs boson in the PQ symmetry
limit. Left (a): depending on whether min{ms,ma} exceeds mχ2−mχ1 , a(s) may or may not be on
shell. Right (b): to be non-negligible, the radiative χ2 decay requires min{ms,ma} > mχ2−mχ1 .)
For mχ2 . 100 and mχ1 ∼ O(1− 10 GeV) the off-diagonal decay h→ χ1χ2 can be kinemat-
ically accessible with an O(0.1) branching fraction. The purely invisible decay h→ χ1χ1 is
suppressed by a factor of ∼ λ/(g1 tan β) relative to the off-diagonal decay, ignoring phase
space factors. Meanwhile, Higgs decay to a pair of bino-like χ2 also scales as a single factor
of the bino-Higgsino mixing angle, Chχ2χ2 ∼ O(g1/λ)Chχ1χ2 and if h→ χ2χ2 is kinematically
available, this branching fraction can be important.
For mχ2 − mχ1 > min{ms,ma}, the heavier neutralino can decay via χ2 → χ1a or
χ2 → χ1s [52, 53]. This leads to a plethora of possible h→ (xx) +E/T or h→ (xx)(yy) +E/T
decays, where x, y are SM partons (most likely b, τ , or light jets, see §1.3.2) that reconstruct
the singlet boson mass a or s. If mχ2 −mχ1 < min{ms,ma}, the principal decay mode of χ2
is the three-body decay χ2 → (a, s)∗χ1 → (xx)χ1, while the radiative mode χ2 → χ1γ may
become significant, with Br(h → χ1χ1γ) as high as O(0.1). On-shell χ2 → χ1Z does not
occur until mχ2 −mχ1 > mZ . Given that we require mχ2 −mχ1 < mh − 2mχ1 , these points
are sparse. Fig. 17 shows the corresponding exotic decay topologies. Further discussion can
be found in Appendix B, together with some example model points which illustrate the main
exotic Higgs decay modes in the PQ-symmetry limit of the NMSSM in Table XXI.
Summary:
The PQ-limit of the NMSSM yields semi-invisible exotic Higgs decays into pairs of light
neutralinos, most typically h → χ2χ1 or h → χ2χ2, with χ2 → χ1a, χ1s, and a, s →
(ff , gg, γγ) [52, 53]. This yields final states of the form (bb) +E/T , (ττ) +E/T , (bb)(bb) +E/T ,
(ττ)(ττ) +E/T , (bb)(ττ) +E/T , and the rarer but cleaner γ +E/T , (2, 4)µ+E/T , (µµ)(bb) +E/T .
54
Depending on the spectrum, the visible particles may be collimated or isolated. Current
experimental constraints and future prospects for a subset of these decays are discussed in
§12 (γ+E/T ), §13 (2γ+E/T ), §16 (collimated 2`+X), §17 (collimated 4`+X), §18 (bb+E/T ),
and §19 (ττ + E/T ).
1.3.9. Little Higgs
Another class of models with additional potentially light spin-0 fields is Little Higgs [209–
211]. In these models, the SM Higgs doublet serves as a pseudo Nambu Goldstone bo-
son (PNGB) of multiple approximate global symmetries. Explicit breaking of this set
of symmetries is collective, namely, apparent only in the presence of at least two terms
in the Lagrangian. This ensures that quadratically divergent diagrams contributing to
the Higgs mass parameter require two loops, thereby allowing to push the cutoff scale to
Λ ∼ (4π)2v ∼ 10 TeV instead of the usual 4πv ∼ 1 TeV.
In order to implement collective symmetry breaking, the electroweak gauge group is ex-
tended to a larger global symmetry, which is partially gauged. The partial gauging introduces
the explicit breaking, which is crucial for having a nonzero Higgs mass as well as Yukawa
couplings. In most Little Higgs models, all the spontaneously broken global generators are
explicitly broken by the partial gauging, thereby giving mass to the associated Goldstone
bosons. However, in some models, not all global generators are explicitly broken at leading
order, either because they are collectively broken like the ones related to the Higgs doublet,
or because that would interfere with collective symmetry breaking [64, 212]. A consequence
of this is the presence of light (pseudo-)scalars a with direct couplings to the SM Higgs,
which potentially leads to exotic Higgs decays [62, 213].
If one imposes Minimal Flavor Violation (MFV)[214? –216] in order to avoid large flavor
changing neutral currents, the couplings of a to SM fermions are proportional to the SM
Yukawas, and thus the coupling to the b quark is typically enhanced.
However, an enhanced decay rate of a to gluons is possible in some cases, as well as an
enhanced rate to charm quarks - which arises for models with enhanced up-Yukawa couplings
compared to down-Yukawa. The former possibility results in a “buried Higgs” [217, 218]
scenario, with the Higgs decaying to four gluon-originated jets, while the latter implies
h → 4c decays, also known as “charming Higgs” [219] (see also [220] for a more recent jet
55
substructure study), where a may decay to cc even if ma > 2mb. Although the original
version of the charming Higgs is excluded by the observed Higgs mass, other versions may
exist (and in any case the same final state arises in other models, such as the type IV
2HDM+Scalar models mentioned in § 1.3.2.)
As a final comment, note that in models with multiple light particles, cascade decays
among these particles, and more complex final states, such as h→ a′a′ → (aaa)(aaa), could
result.
1.3.10. Hidden Valleys
In the hidden valley scenario [31, 51, 75, 134, 221, 222], a sector of SM-singlet particles,
interacting amongst themselves, is appended to the SM. These are then coupled to the
SM through irrelevant operators at the TeV scale, or through marginal operators with weak
couplings. An important additional feature of a hidden valley, distinct from a general hidden
sector, is that a mass gap (or a symmetry) forbids one or more of the valley particles from
decaying entirely to hidden-sector particles; instead, these particles decay to SM particles.
Interactions between the SM and hidden valley may also allow the 125 GeV Higgs to decay
to valley particles, which in turn decay to SM particles.
The phenomenology of Higgs decays to hidden valleys can sometimes be captured by
“simplified” models, including the ones studied earlier in this section, but much more com-
plex patterns of decays may easily arise. This is especially true if hidden valleys have strong
and perhaps confining interactions. For instance, if hidden-valley confinement generates hid-
den “hadrons”, then, just as QCD has a variety of hadrons that decay to non-hadronic final
states, often with long lifetimes, and with masses that are spread widely around 1 GeV, the
hidden valley may have multiple particles of comparable masses that decay to SM particles,
sometimes with very long lifetimes.
More generally, common features that arise in hidden valleys, generally as a result of
self-interactions of one sort or another, include the following.
• Multiple types of neutral particles with narrow widths arise, decaying to the SM
particles via very weak interactions.
• Because their decays are mediated by very weak interactions, their lifetimes may be
56
long, though they are sensitive to unknown parameters; decays may occur promptly,
at a displaced vertex, or far outside the detector, giving a E/T signal.
• As they interact so weakly with the SM, they are rarely produced directly; instead,
they are dominantly produced in the decays of heavy particles, including the Higgs,
neutralinos, etc.
• When created in the decays of heavy particles, the new particles, if sufficiently light,
may commonly be highly boosted.
• Because of their self-interactions, the new particles are often produced in clusters,
just as QCD hadrons (and their parent gluons) are produced in the showering and
hadronization that forms QCD jets.
Hidden valleys arise in several theoretical contexts. Dark matter may well be from a
hidden sector; for instance, the “WIMP miracle” can apply to particles that are not WIMPs
at all [223]. Many of the models that have attempted to explain recent hints of indirect
and direct dark matter detection have involved hidden valleys, the most famous being [135,
136]. Supersymmetry breaking models typically have a hidden sector, within which some
particles (often just a single spin-one or spin-zero particle) occasionally survives to low
energy. And model building that attempts to generate the SM from string theory generally
leads to additional non-SM gauge groups under which no SM particles are charged. Hidden
valleys have also appeared in certain attempts to address the hierarchy problem (cf. Twin
Higgs [224], in which the top quark and W loops that correct the Higgs mass are cancelled
by particles in a hidden valley).
Entry to the hidden valley may occur through a wide variety of “portals”; any neutral
particle, or particle/anti-particle pair, may couple to operators made from valley fields, and
consequently may itself decay to such particles, and may mediate transitions between SM
and valley fields. The Z boson can be a portal; rare Z decays, and rare Z-mediated processes,
can be used to put significant bounds on certain types of hidden valleys. However, explicit
calculation shows these bounds are not sufficient to rule out the possibility [31, 75] that the
Higgs itself has decays to a hidden valley that could be discovered in current or future LHC
data. This is because of the Higgs’ narrow width, which makes it far more sensitive to very
small couplings than is the Z, which is nearly 3 orders of magnitude wider.
57
Aside from direct limits from Z decays, rare B and other meson decays, and direct
production limits, constraints on hidden valleys can arise from precision tests of the SM.
However, these are generally rather weak [31], since the hidden valley sector is weakly
coupled to the SM. Cosmological constraints are sometimes important, but very large classes
of models evade them easily [31].
The hidden valley scenario is relevant for our current purposes because new Higgs de-
cays commonly arise in hidden valley models. What makes hidden valleys an experimental
challenge is that the range of theoretical possibilities are very large. None of the potential
motivations — dark matter, supersymmetry breaking, naturalness, or string theory — point
us toward any particular type of hidden valley, nor is there a strong reason for it to be
minimal. The diversity of phenomena in quantum field theory in its various manifestations
(e.g. extra dimensions) is enormous, and any of these phenomena might appear in a hidden
sector. Fortunately, many models produce similar experimental signals. Indeed, in many
hidden valleys, the dominant discoverable process is the same as one that occurs in one of
the models that we have already discussed.
We first give a few examples of phenomena that can arise in hidden valleys that, though
very different in their origin from theories we have already discussed, give signals that
we have already discussed. We then give some examples of phenomena that we have not
discussed that can arise in these models.
SM + Scalar, 2HDM + Scalar (§1.3.1 and §1.3.2):
Consider a confining hidden valley, with its own gauge group G and quarks Qi, and a
Higgs-like scalar S that gives mass to the Qi via a SQiQi coupling, but does not break G.
We imagine that S mixes with one of the SM Higgs doublets; for example, this model could
be an extension of the NMSSM. If the gauge group confines and breaks chiral smmetry, with
PNGBs Kv, then a SKvKv coupling and the mixing of S and the Higgs allows the decay
h → KvKv. The Kv may then decay to SM fermions, with the heaviest fermions available
typically most common; this can occur for instance via mixing with a heavy Z ′ or with a
SM pseudoscalar Higgs. An example (not at all unique) is given in the model of [31], which
shows decays may be prompt for mKv above about 20 GeV.
SM + 2 Fermions (and similar) (§1.3.3):
The same signal that arises in a simplified model with fermions may arise in hidden
58
valleys, for much the same reasons. But it may arise even when there are no fermions at
all. Consider the same model just mentioned, but with two flavors of PNGBs (as with pions
and kaons in the SM), πv and Kv. It may be that the πv are stable or very long-lived, and
produce only E/T , while Kv cannot decay to two or more πv. This could be due to kinematic
constraints (like Kaons in QCD if mK were less than 2mπ), or symmetries. In that case Kv
may decay via a small coupling to a scalar field S that mixes with h, or via a spin-one vector
V that mixes with Z. This opens up the possibility of Kv → πvh∗ or Kv → πvZ
∗, which
would produce a non-resonant pair of SM fermions, or resonant decays such as Kv → πvS
or Kv → πvV .
In other hidden valleys, it can happen that there are two states, the heavier of which
can only decay to the lighter via a loop of heavy particles, which allows for a radiative (i.e.
photon emission) decay. If the lighter state is stable or decays invisibly, then the signal of
two photons + E/T can arise.
The lesson here is that these signals can arise whenever we have two states, the lighter
of which is invisible and the heavier of which can only decay to the lighter via emission of
an on- or off-shell particle that decays to SM fermions or gauge bosons.
SM + Vector (§1.3.5):
There are several ways for spin-one particles to arise naturally in a hidden valley, and
for these to mix with the photon and/or Z to allow them to decay to SM fermions. There
could be a broken U(1) symmetry, giving what is often called a “dark photon”. Mixing with
the hypercharge boson is through renormalizable kinetic mixing. There could be a broken
non-abelian gauge symmetry; in this case, there could be several spin-one particles, with the
heavier ones decaying to the lighter ones via a cascade. Such a scenario only permits mixing
with hypercharge through a dimension-five version of kinetic mixing. Finally, the spin-one
particles could be stable bound states ρv, like a ρ meson in a theory with no chiral symmetry
breaking and no pions. (An example with a stable vector and a stable pseudovector was
given in [31].)
Decays of the Higgs to such particles can be induced using any of the mechanisms men-
tioned above or in the simplified model discussion. For instance, decay of a Higgs to two ρv
(or, if there are two vectors ρ1, ρ2, the decay h → ρ1ρ2) can occur along the same lines as
the decay h→ KvKv mentioned earlier.
59
A particularly well-known example of this type of hidden valley is [149], in which an
elementary “dark photon” of low mass preferentially creates light leptons with very few
photons or neutral pions. Dark matter annihilation can create these dark photons and thus
provide leptonic final states potentially consistent with certain astrophysical observations.
Because the dark photon must be lightweight, it tends to be produced with a high boost,
giving the now-famous phenomenon of a “lepton-jet”. A simple lepton-jet contains two
nearby leptons, isolated from other particles but not from one another. (More complex
lepton jets will be addressed below.)
In this paper, we have limited ourselves to relatively simple final states to which the
Higgs might decay. However, the complex final states that are common in hidden valleys are
important to keep in mind, as they can pose considerable (though interesting) experimental
challenges. For instance, even limited complexity can lead to 8 or more visible partons, from
four hidden valley scalars, pseudoscalars, or vectors (possibly plus E/T ) in a Higgs decay. The
kinematics are then dependent on the hidden sector’s mass spectrum and internal dynamics,
giving rise to a wide array of signals.
This direction of research lies beyond our scope and should be returned to in the future.
However, a couple of relatively simple experimental cases deserve note. First, any of the
final states mentioned above may be accompanied by valley particles that are long-lived on
detector time-scales and therefore invisible. This motivates searches for similar final states
accompanied by E/T , which we address in §12, §13, §14, §15, §16, §17, §18, and §19.
Second, many models produce “complex” lepton-jets, in which multiple “dark-photons”
(or dark non-abelian bosons or ρ mesons) are created near one another, clustered either
by the kinematics of a cascade decay or by the physics of hidden-valley showering and
hadronization. Some efforts have been made to find such objects [225]. Another interesting
possibility would give several such dark photons created with low momentum along with E/T ,
leading to many unclustered very soft leptons. An attempt to search for such final states
was made by CDF [226]. Unfortunately, in models where the vector bosons can decay also to
pions, the leptons are fewer and hadrons often take their place, making the challenges much
greater. One important signature, which is useful for particles of mass up to several GeV,
is a di-pion resonance with the same mass as a di-lepton resonance. In models where the
light particles are pseudo-scalars, and often produce taus and rarely muons, it is not clear
60
whether a good search strategy exists, unless rates are sufficient for a di-muon resonance
search.
Another issue that commonly arises in hidden valleys is long-lived neutral particles [31].
Valley particles, by definition, are neutral under all SM gauge groups. The case of hadrons in
QCD offers a useful analogy. Most hadrons in QCD are highly unstable, but a few are stable,
and others are metastable, for a diversity of reasons (exact and approximate symmetries,
weak forces, kinematic constraints, etc.) Their decays are often very slow on QCD time-
scales, and their lifetimes are spread across many orders of magnitude, from the neutron at
fifteen minutes to the π0 at a hundredth of a femtosecond. The same could be true of a
sector of hidden valley particles. The particles that are stable on detector time-scales will
give us nothing but E/T . The shorter-lived particles will give us prompt decays, of the sort
that we discuss in this article. But it is quite common, given a rich spectrum of particles
with a variety of lifetimes, that one or more will decay typically with a displaced vertex.
An example of a natural theory where such particles may arise in Higgs decays [75] is the
Twin Higgs [224], though the details are still to be worked out. This issue takes us beyond
our current purposes, but this possibility has already received some amount of experimental
study, as in [77–94, 227, 228]
2. h→ E/T
2.1. Theoretical Motivation
Higgs decays into a new stable, neutral particle have a venerable history, going back to
the pioneering work of Suzuki and Shrock [24]. Since the astrophysical evidence for particle
dark matter strongly suggests the existence of new neutral degrees of freedom, potential
Higgs decays to dark matter (DM) are a topic of particular interest [28, 229, 230]. While the
most minimal models of Higgs-coupled DM with 2mDM < 125 GeV have been excluded by
LHC observations of the Higgs boson alone (direct detection, particularly from XENON100,
also constrains these models; see, e.g. [231]), non-minimal models can easily still allow for
light thermal DM coupling to the SM predominantly through the Higgs [232–234]. Dark
matter therefore constitutes one of the most robust motivations for the invisible decay mode.
The possibility that the Higgs might dominantly decay to neutralinos in models with
61
weak-scale supersymmetry [182] has received comparatively less attention due to the dif-
ficulty of achieving this signature in traditional CMSSM-type models of supersymmetry
breaking [235]. With less restricted spectra, or in non-minimal models such as the NMSSM,
it is easier to realize Higgs decays to neutralinos [187, 236–239] and/or goldstini [48, 240].
Beyond supersymmetry and DM, many theoretical frameworks predict one or more new
neutral particles, often naturally light, which can furnish an invisible BSM decay mode
for the Higgs boson. Frequently considered examples are majorons [24, 26, 241] as well
as more general PNGBs [242]; hidden sectors [29–31, 243, 244]; fourth-generation neutrinos
[245, 246]; and right-handed neutrinos [247] and their K-K excitations [235] or superpartners
[248].
2.2. Existing Collider Studies
The Higgs decay to missing energy is a difficult experimental signature due to the lack of
kinematic information in the final state and the irreducible background from SM Z → νν
production. Nevertheless, the excellent theoretical motivation for this signal has made it a
focus of study for many years. A Higgs decaying invisibly must be produced in association
with another object in order to be observed. In order of production cross-section, the
reasonable candidates are then:
• gg → h+jets
• VBF production of h+ 2j
• Wh, W → `ν
• Zh, Z → `+`−, (bb).
While tth associated production initially appeared promising [249, 250], the small cross-
section and complex final state make this mode challenging.
The monojet+E/T signal, sensitive to gluon fusion production with ISR,15 has a large rate,
but its reach is limited by the lack of kinematic handles to separate an invisible Higgs from
15 There is a potentially significant contribution from VBF to monojet +E/T searches, depending on the jet
criteria adopted in the search [251].
62
the nearby background Z + j [47]. Similarly, production in association with a leptonic W is
not useful for an invisibly-decaying Higgs boson, due to the lack of kinematic information
in the final state that could separate the signal from the large Drell-Yan background qq →
W ∗ → `ν [252–254].
The VBF production mode offers the best combination of cross-section and signal-to-
background discrimination at the LHC, both for 14 TeV [46, 255] and 7 and 8 TeV [47].16
Ref. [47] estimates that 20 fb−1 at 8 TeV can allow limits to be placed for Br(h→ E/T ) & 0.4,
while Ref. [256] estimates the sensitivity Br(h → E/T ) & 0.25 with 300 fb−1 at 14 TeV.
Meanwhile Ref. [254] estimates sensitivity for Br(h → E/T ) & 0.50 with 30 fb−1 at 14 TeV.
Assumptions about systematic errors are critical in obtaining these estimates.
Associated production with a leptonically decaying Z boson has significantly smaller LHC
cross-section than any of the above production modes, but on the other hand the final state
contains more kinematic information [252, 253, 257]. For a 125 GeV Higgs, Zh, Z → `` can
nearly approach the reach of VBF at the 14 TeV LHC [254], though its utility at 7 and 8
TeV is more limited [47]. Including Z → bb as well as Z → `+`− decays can incrementally
improve the reach, at both the Tevatron [235] and the LHC [256].
2.3. Existing Experimental Searches and Limits
The best existing constraints come from ATLAS measurements targeting Zh associated
production with Z → ``, which limit the invisible branching fraction to be
Br(h→ invisible) < 0.65 (0.84 expected) (65)
at 95% CL [258] with 4.7 fb−1 at 7 TeV and 13.0 fb−1 at 8 TeV. The measurement by CMS
in the same channel with the full 7 and 8 TeV data sets places a 95% CL upper bound on
the invisible branching fraction of Br(h → invisible) < 0.75(0.91) [259]. CMS also has a
measurement in the VBF channel, with a 95% CL upper limit [260]
Br(h→ invisible) < 0.69 observed (0.53 expected) (66)
with 19.6 fb−1 of 8 TeV data. Much weaker limits come from reinterpretation of monojet
+E/T measurements [251].
16 Note that searches targeting the VBF production mode also see a secondary signal contribution from
gg → h+ 2j, which is relatively more important at 7 and 8 TeV than at 14 TeV.
63
3. h→ 4b
One possible exotic Higgs decays is to four b quarks via a light resonance X: h→ XX →
bbbb. Below, we outline the theoretical motivation to consider such decays, and discuss their
LHC phenomenology.
3.1. Theoretical Motivation
In the SM, a 125 GeV Higgs can decay to four b quarks via ZZ∗. This branching ratio
is small: Br(h → ZZ∗) × Br(Z → bb)2 ∼ 10−4. The bb pair associated with the on-shell
Z boson is relatively uncollimated because of the large Z mass, and the resulting signature
has a large irreducible QCD background. A more experimentally viable situation occurs
in models where the Higgs decays to new particles “X” which further decay to a pair of
b-quarks. Such a decay topology can arise in several new physics scenarios, such the general
2HDM+S (§1.3.2), extensions of the SM with hidden light gauge bosons (§1.3.5), the (R-
symmetry limit of the) NMSSM (§1.3.7), the Little Higgs model (§1.3.9), and commonly in
the Hidden Valley scenario (§1.3.10. In all of these models, X → bb can be the dominant
decay mode in certain regions of parameter space, therefore strongly motivating the study
of the h→ 4b decay channel.
• 2HDM+S: In two-Higgs-doublet models with an additional light singlet, the decay h→
ss or h → aa, where s (a) is the mostly-singlet (pseudo)scalar is generic. Depending
on tan β, the decays s → bb or a → bb are also generic (although not guaranteed) in
all four 2HDM Types as long as ma, ms > 2mb.
• R-symmetry limit in the NMSSM: The additional two degrees of freedom in the
NMSSM Higgs sector (which corresponds to a Type II 2HDM+S model) make a light
pseudoscalar a with sizable coupling to the SM-like Higgs and SM fermions possible.
In the case of an approximate R-symmetry, the imaginary component of the new sin-
glet is naturally light, since it serves as a pseudo-Goldstone boson of the spontaneously
broken U(1)R, once the singlet acquires a vacuum expectation value. For ma ≤ mh/2,
the decay h → aa opens up. (Note, however, that while a is light in the PQ limit of
the NMSSM, the decay h → aa is generically suppressed compared to other decays;
64
see [52] or §1.3.8.) The pseudoscalar a couples to fermions proportional to the Yukawa
matrices, which are enhanced by sin β/ sinα. This makes large decay branching ratios
for a→ bb natural in large regions of parameter space.
• Little Higgs models: Another class of models with potentially light pseudo-scalars is
the Little Higgs model. The couplings of a to SM fermions are again proportional
to the SM Yukawas if one imposes Minimal Flavor Violation (MFV) [214? –216] in
order to get rid of large flavor violation; thus the coupling to the b-quark is typically
enhanced.
3.2. Existing Collider Studies
Most of the existing collider studies are performed within the NMSSM framework (the
Little Higgs model was considered in [261]) under the assumption that Br(h → aa) ' 1.
Those studies that have been performed at the LHC were done for√s = 14 TeV. The
case with√s = 8 TeV has not explicitly been studied, but insight can still be gained from
previous work.
LEP and Tevatron
Much of the earlier literature on exotic Higgs decays was framed in the context of trying
to evade the LEP limit of mh > 114 GeV for a Higgs produced with SM-like strength,
allowing for a lighter and more natural Higgs. For example, [262] presented constraints from
LEP on NMSSM cascade decays; for h→ 4b, the Higgs mass constraint is around 110 GeV,
only slightly weaker than the LEP constraint on a SM Higgs. The 125 GeV Higgs is not
constrained by LEP, as it is above LEP’s kinematic limit. The Tevatron also does not have
any exclusion power for h→ 4b with SM-strength production [201, 261, 263, 264].
LHC
The literature contains several collider studies examining h → 4b decay at the 14 TeV
LHC. Refs. [58, 59] considered the 4b final state in the context of VBF Higgs production,
but this signature is very difficult to distinguish from QCD background. More recently the
focus has been on the Wh production mode [190, 261, 264, 265], where the tagged lepton
greatly reduces backgrounds and enhances discovery potential.
Ref. [190] is the most recent study demonstrating how a very simple 4b search could
65
constrain h→ aa→ bbbb at LHC14. It makes use of the known Higgs mass and utilizes full
showering and fast detector simulation. The total signal cross section is parameterized in
terms of the associated Higgs production cross section σWh,
σ4b = C24bσWh, (67)
where
C24b = κ2
hV V Br(h→ aa)Br(a→ bb), (68)
and κhV V is the WWh coupling strength relative to the SM. Within the assumptions we
make in this survey, C24b = Br(h → 2a → 4b). The selection requirements are exactly 4
b-tags (with assumed 70, 5, 1% efficiency for b, c, light flavor jet), one isolated lepton, and a
reconstructed m4b in the Higgs mass window. This greatly reduces the main backgrounds
(tt + jets and V + jets). At the 14 TeV LHC with 300 fb−1 of data, this gives signal
significance S/√B = 2 for Br(h→ 2a→ 4b) ≈ 0.1 if ma > 30 GeV.
Searching for h → 2a → 4b decay if ma < 30 GeV requires the use of jet substructure.
This case was addressed by [265], which primarily deals with the much more difficult sig-
nature h → aa → 4g (also considered in [218, 266–268]), with h → 4b considered as a
special case that can also make use of heavy flavor tagging. They focus on boosted Higgs
production in association with a W or Z (with C24b = 1 in the above notation) by requiring
a reconstructed vector boson to have pTV > 200 GeV. A range of pseudoscalar masses is
considered for a 120 GeV Higgs.
For ma . 30 GeV, a boosted Higgs decaying as h→ aa→ 4j can produce a 2-, 3-, or 4-
pronged fat jet. Pseudoscalar candidates are constructed to minimize their mass difference,
requiring the lighter pseudoscalar candidate to have at least 75% of the mass of the heavier
one, and by selecting events with a fat jet mass close to the hypothesized Higgs mass and
looking for a pseudoscalar mass resonance.
Assuming Br(h → 4b) = 1, without heavy flavor tagging the h → 4j signature can be
observed at 3σ with 100 fb−1 of LHC14 luminosity; adding 1 (2) b-tags improves the h→ 4b
discovery signal to ∼ 6σ (& 10σ). Naively scaling this sensitivity to 300 fb−1 we obtain a
signal significance S/√B ≈ 2 for Br(h→ 2a→ 4b) ≈ 0.1. This is comparable to the result
for ma > 30 GeV by [190].
It therefore seems reasonable to expect the LHC14 to have 2σ sensitivity to Br(h→ 2a→
4b) = 0.1 (0.2) with 300 fb−1 (100 fb−1) of data across the kinematically allowed mass range
66
for the pseudoscalar a.
3.3. Existing Experimental Searches and Limits
Due to large QCD backgrounds to the 4b final state, the only realistic discovery mode
for h → bbbb at the LHC is Wh associated production. The produced lepton allows for
the event to be triggered on, which is difficult for the relatively soft all-hadronic final state
resulting from gluon-fusion or vector-boson fusion Higgs production. Therefore, the relevant
final state for experimental searches is 4b+ `+ E/T (or some variety with fewer b-tags).
To the best of our knowledge, no such search has been performed. V (h → bb) searches
[269, 270] have not yet reached SM sensitivity and are even less likely to find the softer
signal from 4 b’s. Searches for b(h → bb) production [271, 272] do not look for an isolated
lepton or large amounts of E/T , which results in large backgrounds, and SUSY searches for
final states containing several b-jets like [273] also typically do not require a lepton while
requiring an amount of missing energy that is much too high for V h production.
The h → aa → 4b process will contribute to the signal region of SM h → 2b searches.
The recent CMS analysis [274] observes a 2σ excess consistent with a SM-like 125 GeV
Higgs, constituting the first indication of h → bb decay at the LHC. The signal strength
corresponding to this excess is
µ2b ≡σh Brh→ bb
[σh Brh→ bb]SM
= 1.0± 0.5. (69)
We can, in principle, use this to derive a limit on Br(h → 4b). Define the ma-dependent
efficiency ratio
r4b(ma) =εh→2a→4b
εh→2b
(70)
for a h → 2a → 4b event to end up in the signal region of the h → 2b search, relative to
a SM-like h → 2b event. Assuming a SM-like partial width ΓSMh→2b as well as SM-like Higgs
production, and defining the total Higgs with in the SM to be ΓSMh , the expected signal
strength observed in a h→ 2b search will be
µ2b =ΓSMh→2b + r4bΓh→2a→4b
ΓSMh + Γh→2a→4b
ΓSMh
ΓSMh→2b
= 1 + Br(h→ 2a→ 4b)
[r4b
Br(h→ 2b)SM− 1
](71)
67
0.2
0.6
11.4
1.8
2.2
2.6
3
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.00.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
r = Ε4 b�Ε2 b
BrHh
®2a
®4b
L
FIG. 18: Expected signal strength observed in a h→ 2b search, assuming SM-like higgs production
and couplings with the exception of a new h → 2a → 4b decay mode with selection efficiency r4b
relative to the efficiency of SM-like h→ 2b events.
For Br(h→ 2b)SM ≈ 0.6, this expected signal strength is shown in Fig. 18.
To estimate r4b for the analysis in [274] we simulated h→ 2b and h→ 2a→ 4b events in
MadGraph and Pythia. Applying the analysis cuts from [274] we find that 0.5 . r4b . 1.5,
with higher efficiency for lighter pseudoscalar masses ma ∼ 15 GeV, since the resulting
collimated 2b-jets are tagged as single b-jets from h → 2b decay. Given the 2σ limit of
µ2b < 1.9 by [274] we can then read off a limit on Br(h → 2a → 4b) from Fig. 18. For
ma ∼ 15 GeV, the limit17 is Br(h→ 2a→ 4b) . 0.7, while no meaningful limits are derived
for heavier pseudoscalars.
Clearly there exists motivation for a dedicated experimental search, which could easily
be performed by triggering on leptons and missing energy from associated Higgs production,
and performing a 4b search similar to the studies by [190, 265].
17 The assumption of SM-like Γh→2b in our interpretation does not take into account the reduced hbb coupling
when Br(h → 2a → 4b) is high due to large higgs-singlet mixing in a model like SM+S or 2HDM+S. In
such a case, consistently taking the reduced Γh→2b into account would make this limit slightly weaker.
68
3.4. Proposals for New Searches at the LHC
The LHC14 studies [190, 261, 264, 265] as well as the above-mentioned limit from the
h → 2b search make it plausible that a 2σ sensitivity for the Br(h → 4b) . 0.5 could be
obtained using 25 fb−1 of LHC8 data (this is based on a naive scaling of cross sections and
luminosity). More study would be needed to investigate the sensitivity in more detail. The
boosted regime is also worth exploring at LHC8, either by looking for explicitly boosted
pseudoscalars from Higgs decay giving two-pronged double-b-jets (depending on ma) or for
fully boosted Higgses as in [265], or by looking indirectly via a diagonal cut in the (pT,2b,m2b)
plane and requiring low ∆R2b. These analyses can be easily parameterized in a simplified
model with a single pseudoscalar a of mass ma and a 125 GeV Higgs with SM-like production
modes. The signature-space then only has two parameters, ma and C24b as defined in Eq. (68).
4. h→ 2b2τττ
4.1. Theoretical Motivation
This channel can become very important in the case that the Higgs decays into a pair
of light (pseudo)-scalars, h → aa, with a further mostly decaying into the third generation
fermions bb or τ+τ−. In the mass range 2mb < ma < mh/2 the Higgs can have a relatively
large branching ratio into aa, while both decays into bb and τ+τ− are allowed by phase space.
In many models, e.g. the NMSSM (see §1.3.7), Little Higgs models (see §1.3.9) and certain
Hidden Valley models (see §1.3.10), the couplings of a to SM fermions will be roughly
proportional to the SM Yukawa couplings (with some corrections that depend on tan β),
leading to Br(a → bb) ≈ 94% and Br(a → τ+τ−) ≈ 6%. In this case ∼ 90% of all the aa
decays will end up in bbbb, ∼ 10% in bbτ+τ− and less than 1% in τ+τ−τ+τ−. The first mode
was discussed in §3 and is very challenging, especially in the range of ma . 30 GeV, where
the b-jets start merging. The last channel, h → 4τ , is discussed in §6 for general models.
However, in the class of models considered here, where Br(a → bb)/Br(a → τ+τ−) '
3m2b/m
2τ , the 4τ rate is likely too small to be exploited. In this case, bbτ+τ− can be a
reasonable compromise between branching fraction and visibility of the signal. In particular,
more than 50% of the ditau decays include at least one isolated lepton.
69
4.2. Existing Collider Studies
This channel has attracted the attention of several research groups both in the context
of the Tevatron and of the LHC. Most of the studies assumed a O(1) branching fraction for
the decay h→ aa.
• Refs. [264, 275] performed a feasibility study for this mode at the Tevatron. This study
used associated production of the Higgs with a leptonic W . The study found very few
sources of irreducible backgrounds, but also very small σ(Wh)×Br(h→ bbτ+τ−). For
example, for Br(h → aa) = 1, which is bigger than what we can realistically assume
today, effective production rates after the acceptance cuts σ(Wh)×Br(h→ bbτ+τ−) =
0.55 fb have been found for a Higgs with massmh = 120 GeV and with a very optimistic
assumption on the branching ratios of the pseudoscalar a: Br(a → bb) = 0.7 and
Br(a→ τ+τ−) = 0.3 [275]18. This can probably be improved by ∼ 40% if this channel
is combined with Z(→ `+`−)h associated production. But probably little more can be
gained at the Tevatron, and one cannot hope for more than just a few signal events in
the realistic case.
• This study was performed in Ref [276] for the LHC at 14 TeV. Motivated by the SM
h → τ+τ− channel, the authors concentrated on the VBF Higgs production mode.
This study largely relies on a precise reconstruction of mbb for rejection of the dom-
inant tt background, while mττ and mbbττ are not considered. The study is rather
preliminary, and it claims that with 100 fb−1 data, a significance of S/√B ∼ 2 is
possible after b-tagging.
It is also worth noticing that this study only considered channels with both τs decaying
leptonically (denoted τ`), and the situation can probably be significantly improved by
including τ ’s decaying hadronically (denoted τh), e.g. τ`τh and maybe even τhτh final
states. Unfortunately we have not found any other dedicated studies along these lines.
• Ref. [264] also very briefly discussed this search for 14 TeV LHC, considering only
associated production with a W or Z, decaying leptonically. This study found this
mode largely unfeasible at 100 fb−1 due to very small S/B ratio.
18 Note that these branching ratios can only be obtained in a small region of parameter space of the NMSSM
that predicts very large radiative corrections to the aτ+τ− and abb couplings.
70
4.3. Discussion of Future Searches at the LHC
We are not aware of any current experimental searches in this channel. Searches for
h + 2b with h → 2τ [277, 278] are not sensitive to the 2b2τ decay mode, as they did not
search for 2τ -resonances below 90 GeV. Nonetheless, this channel might be a very important
direction for studies of the LHC at 14 TeV. Probably, in order to have optimal reach, all three
major productions modes (gluon fusion, VBF, and W/Z associated production) should be
combined together. Different production modes may be dominated by different backgrounds.
While tt looks indeed like a formidable background for VBF, it is possible that γ∗/Z∗+ jets
dominates the two other channels.
It is also worth noticing additional complications for very small values of ma. First, as
the mass of a is getting close to the Υ mass, the branching ratio a→ bb can be significantly
reduced in favor of a → η + X, leading effectively to a τ+τ−j event topology and opening
up additional possible backgrounds from bottomonium decays [279] (see [123] for a detailed
discussion and calculation of the branching ratios). In addition, the τ ’s tend to merge in
this region of parameter space, failing isolated reconstruction criteria and yielding effectively
a single τ -like jet instead of two. Finally, triggering on these events may be an issue. In
particular, one can only be confident that associated production events are triggered with a
reasonable efficiency. At LHC8, one can also probably use parked data at CMS gathered via
the (low-efficiency) VBF trigger. It is not clear, though, whether a search in this channel is
feasible. At the 14 TeV LHC, the trigger thresholds may be too high for this type of decay,
and therefore one probably has to focus on associated production.
We conclude that more dedicated feasibility studies for the LHC are needed in this par-
ticular channel.
5. h→ 2b2µµµ
The possibility of the Higgs boson decaying to (bb)(µ+µ−) is intriguing. In the context
of NMSSM and 2HDM+S models it represents a compromise between the very difficult but
often dominant 4b mode (see §3) and the spectacular but rare 4µ signature. Below we
present the theoretical motivation to consider this decay mode and demonstrate the reach of
a dedicated search at both Run I and II of the LHC. A detailed study will appear in [280].
71
5.1. Theoretical Motivation
The h → (bb)(µ+µ−) decay mode occurs when the Higgs field couples to one or more
bosons a(i) that couple to b quarks and muons, with at least one a(i) heavy enough to
decay to bb. As discussed in §1.3.1, the simplest realization of such a scenario is given by
extending the SM to include an additional real singlet scalar. However, searching for this
mode is motivated in any model with additional singlets that couple to quarks in proportion
to their masses.19 This includes the 2HDM+S (§1.3.2) and the well-known NMSSM (§1.3.7),
as well as many hidden valleys (§1.3.10).
The small coupling to muons leads to very hierarchical branching ratios,
Br(h→ 4µ) =ε
2Br(h→ 2b2µ) = ε2Br(h→ 4b), (72)
with ε ≡ Br(a → µ+µ−)/Br(a → bb) ∼ m2µ/3m
2b ≈ 2 × 10−4 in the SM+S. (Non-minimal
scalar models can modify this ratio, but the ratio is in general very small.) Assuming SM
Higgs production and Br(h → aa) = 10% leads to zero h → 2a → 4µ events from gluon
fusion at LHC Run I, while about twenty h → 2a → 2b2µ events are expected to occur.
Even though this is much less than the few hundred h → 2a → 4b events expected from
associated production, the backgrounds for the 4b search are so challenging (see §3) that
the 2b2µ channel may provide much better sensitivity. This is even more attractive in non-
minimal models, where e.g. tan β can enhance the leptonic pseudoscalar branching fraction
significantly. It is also possible that the Higgs decays to two pseudo scalars, h→ a1a2, which
have large branching fractions to 2b and 2µ, respectively. The presence of a clean dimuon
resonance makes the 2b2µ decay mode very attractive for discovering SM extensions with
extra singlets.
5.2. Existing Collider Studies and Experimental Searches
To the best of our knowledge there have been no theoretical collider studies of this final
state, and there are no limits on this decay channel from existing searches. A similar topology
is searched for in h → bb from associated production with a Z boson, where the Z decays
19 If the coupling is through gauge interactions, fully leptonic final states are generally the preferred discovery
channel, see §10 and §11.
72
to µ+µ−. However, this search is not relevant for (2b)(2µ), since the required bb invariant
mass was O(125 GeV), and the two muons were required to reconstruct the Z-boson. A
dedicated search is therefore needed for this channel.
5.3. Proposals for New Searches at the LHC
We estimate the discovery potential of a very simple search for h → 2a → 2b2µ with
Run I LHC data as well as 100 fb−1 at 14 TeV. This preliminary study is simulated at
parton-level for signal and backgrounds (see [280] for a more complete study).
LHC 7 and 8 TeV
We assume the Higgs is produced through gluon fusion and has a non-zero branching ratio
as h → aa → (bb)(µ+µ−). We do not include Higgs bosons produced through VBF in our
analysis, although this would slightly increase the sensitivity to this channel. The final state
consists of two opposite-sign muons and two b-tagged jets and is simulated for mh = 125 GeV
and ma ∈ (15, 60) GeV. (Lower masses involve complicated decays to quarkonia [123], which
are beyond the scope of this study.) The main background is Drell-Yan (DY) production
with associated jets, Z/γ∗ + 2j/2c/2b, where the Z-decay/γ∗ produces two muons. In this
preliminary estimate, we neglect backgrounds arising from lepton-misidentification of jets,
diboson production V V , and tt production, which are expected to be subdominant to DY.
(The tt background has a total cross section comparable to DY + jets but does not contribute
significantly in the low dimuon invariant mass region [281, 282], and also typically produces
a sizable amount of E/T that is not present for the signal.)
Both signal and background are simulated to lowest order at parton-level in Mad-
Graph 5 [283]. The signal is renormalized by the NLO gluon-fusion cross section σggF '
19.3 pb [12]. The obtained leading-order cross sections for backgrounds20 are σbbµ+µ− '
3.7 pb, σccµ+µ− ' 8.6 pb, and σjjµ+µ− ' 226 pb. These samples are scaled up by a repre-
sentative K-factor of 2. We approximate the total Run I data with 25 fb−1 at√s = 8 TeV.
To approximate trigger threshold and detector reconstruction requirements, we impose
the following preselection cuts: only use partons with |η| < 2.5; require ∆R between any two
20 We impose generator-level cuts pT (j) > 10 GeV, pT (l) > 5 GeV, η(j) < 5, η(l) < 2.5,∆Rjj,µµ,jµ > 0.4.
Here j includes heavy flavor.
73
Selection Criteria S (rel.) S (cum.) bb (rel.) bb (cum.) cc (rel.) cc (cum.) j′j′ (rel.) j′j′ (cum.)
Nev, initial (25 fb−1) 80.8 1.9× 105 4.3× 105 1.1× 107
Two opposite sign µ’s 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
|η(µ1)|, |η(µ2)| < 2.5
pTµ1,µ2> 17 GeV, 8 GeV 58% 58% 69% 69% 41% 41% 63% 63%
At least two jets 100% 58% 100% 69% 100% 41% 100% 63%
|η(j1)|, |η(j2)| < 2.5,
pT (j1), pT (j2) > 25 GeV 6.6% 3.8% 18% 12% 16% 6.4% 18% 11%
∆Rj1j2,jµ,µ1µ2 > 0.7, 0.4, 0.4 100% 3.8% 96% 12% 97% 6.2% 95% 11%
|m(j1, j2)−ma| < 15 GeV 100% 3.8% 5.3% 6.4× 10−3 5.5% 3.4× 10−3 5.3% 5.7× 10−3
|m(µ1, µ2, j1, j2)−mh| < 15 GeV 100% 3.8% 2.7% 1.7× 10−3 8.6% 2.9× 10−4 4.3% 2.4× 10−4
|m(µ1, µ2)−ma| < 1 GeV 100% 3.8% 4.1% 7× 10−6 2.8% 8× 10−6 3.6% 8.7× 10−6
Nev, final (25 fb−1, no b-tag) 3.1 1.3 3.4 97.8
S = 3.1 Btotal = 102.5 S/B = 0.03 S/√B = 0.31
TABLE III: Relative and cumulative efficiencies of the signal “S” (h → aa → bbµ+µ−) and
backgrounds for ma = 30 GeV (without b-tagging) at 8 TeV LHC. The labels bb, cc, and jj indicate
SM Drell-Yan (Z/γ∗) productions with final states bbµ+µ−, ccµ+µ−, and jjµ+µ−, respectively. For
the signal normalization, we assume Br(h→ aa) = 10% and a 2HDM-Type III (leptonic-specific) +
S model with tanβ = 2. The latter assumption leads to 2×Br(a→ bb)Br(a→ µ+µ−) = 1.7×10−3
(see §1.3.2).
jets to be > 0.7, and between two muons or between a muon and a jet > 0.4; two leading jets
with pTj1,2 > 25 GeV; two muons with pTµ1,2 > 17 GeV, 8 GeV, respectively. To roughly
simulate b-(mis)tagging we reweight events according to constant tagging probabilities of
65%, 10% and 0.5% for b, c, and light jets, respectively [284]. Following this preselection, we
require either 0, 1, or 2 b-tags and use mass reconstruction cuts to focus in on the signal for
each pseudoscalar mass:
|mµµ −ma| < 1 GeV , |mjj −ma| < 15 GeV , |mjjµµ −mh| < 15 GeV. (73)
Table III shows the relative and cumulative efficiencies for the signal and background.
Fig. 19 shows an example of distributions of the signal with ma = 30 GeV and backgrounds
after applying the kinematic cuts and tagging probabilities above. As expected, Z/γ∗ pro-
duction clearly dominates the signal if no b-tag is applied. The signal is visible only in the
b-tagged cases.
74
0 10 20 30 40 50 600
50
100
150
200
250
mΜΜ @GeVD
Events�GeV
Preliminary
j jΜ+Μ-
bbΜ+Μ-
ccΜ+Μ-
Signal
0 10 20 30 40 50 600
1
2
3
4
5
mΜΜ @GeVD
Events�GeV
Preliminary
j jΜ+Μ-
bbΜ+Μ-
ccΜ+Μ-
Signal
0 10 20 30 40 50 600.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
mΜΜ @GeVD
Events�GeV
Preliminary
j jΜ+Μ-
bbΜ+Μ-
ccΜ+Μ-
Signal
FIG. 19: Dimuon invariant mass spectrum, mµµ, for signal (ma = 30 GeV) and backgrounds
for 25 fb−1 at 8 TeV LHC after all kinematic cuts (except for mµµ cuts) with (left) no b-tag,
(middle) at least one b-tag, and (right) two b-tags. For the signal normalization, we assume
Br(h→ aa) = 10% and 2× Br(a→ bb)Br(a→ µ+µ−) = 1.7× 10−3 as in Table III.
We demonstrate 95% C.L. sensitivity of Br(h → aa → bbµ+µ−) with respect to ma in
Fig. 20. For ma ≤ 25 GeV, the bb from a-decay are collimated enough to fail our simple re-
construction cuts. A more sophisticated substructure analysis is required in this regime [280].
The upper limits on Br(h→ aa→ bbµ+µ−) can be further translated into upper bounds
for Br(h→ aa) for a fixed ma by noticing
Br(h→ aa) =Br(h→ aa→ bbµ+µ−)
2Br(a→ bb)Br(a→ µ+µ−)=
Br(h→ aa→ bbµ+µ−)
2Br(a→ bb)Br(a→ τ+τ−)
m2τβτ
m2µβµ
, (74)
where βf ≡ (1 − 4m2f/m
2a)
1/2. This allows us to show Br(h → aa) limits in the plane of a
branching ratios to bb and ττ , which can be free parameters relative to each other (see e.g.
2HDM+S, §1.3.2), while the ratio between ττ and µµ is fixed by their masses. From Fig. 20
the corresponding upper limits on Br(h→ aa→ bbµ+µ−) are 4.6× 10−4 (ma = 30 GeV, at
least one b-tag), 5.2× 10−4 (ma = 30 GeV, two b-tags), 1.3× 10−4 (ma = 60 GeV, at least
one b-tag), and 1.4× 10−4 (ma = 60 GeV, two b-tags).
LHC 14 TeV
We repeat the study with identical cuts for 100 fb−1 of data at the 14 TeV LHC. The gluon
fusion NLO Higgs production cross section is σggF = 49.85 pb [12]. Drell-Yan background
cross sections at LO from MadGraph with identical generator level cuts are σbbµ+µ− =
9.68 pb, σccµ+µ− = 20.5 pb, and σjjµ+µ− = 452.5 pb, again upscaled by a K-factor of 2.
The expected 95% C.L. sensitivity of the 14 TeV LHC is shown in Fig. 22. We then
translate this sensitivity to the expected 95% C.L. sensitivity to Br(h → aa) as a function
75
10 20 30 40 50 6010-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
1
ma @GeVD
Max.BrHh®aa®bbΜ+Μ-L
8 TeV LHC, L=25 fb-1
At least one b-tagTwo b-tagsNo b-tag
FIG. 20: Expected 95% C.L. sensitivity to Br(h→ aa→ bbµ+µ−) for 25 fb−1 data at 8 TeV LHC.
The solid, dashed, and dotted lines show the limits for at least one b-tag, two b-tags, and no b-tag,
respectively.
of the branching ratios of a to bb and τ+τ−, assuming that the pseudoscalar coupling to
τ ’s and µ’s is proportional to mτ and mµ, respectively. Fig. 23 demonstrates the expected
sensitivity to ma = 30 GeV and ma = 60 GeV. The corresponding expected sensitivities
to Br(h → aa → bbµ+µ−) are 1.8 × 10−4 (ma = 30 GeV, at least one b-tag), 1.5 × 10−4
(ma = 30 GeV, two b-tags), 6.2 × 10−5 (ma = 60 GeV, at least one b-tag), and 5.3 × 10−5
(ma = 60 GeV, two b-tags).
Summary
Our simple parton-level study demonstrates that ∼ 10−4 − 10−3 sensitivity to Br(h →
2a → 2b2µ) is possible at the LHC. We will investigate this channel more closely in [280],
but these preliminary results already strongly suggest conducting a corresponding search
with available Run I data.
76
8 TeV LHC, L=25 fb-1
ma=30 GeV
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5Max. Br Hh®aaL = 1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
1
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.00.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Br Ha ® Τ+Τ-L
BrHa®bbL
8 TeV LHC, L=25 fb-1
ma=60 GeV
0.03
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.4Max. Br Hh®aaL = 1
0.03
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.4
1
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.00.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Br Ha ® Τ+Τ-L
BrHa®bbL
FIG. 21: Expected 95% C.L. sensitivity to Br(h→ aa) from a h→ bbµ+µ− search as a function of
Br(a→ bb) and Br(a→ τ+τ−), assuming that the pseudoscalar coupling to leptons is proportional
to the lepton masses. We show ma = 30 GeV (left) and ma = 60 GeV (right) with 25 fb−1 of data
at the 8 TeV LHC (see text for further details). The red solid lines and blue dashed lines present
the limits for at least one b-tag and two b-tags, respectively. The corresponding sensitivities to
Br(h→ aa→ bbµ+µ−) are given in Fig. 20.
10 20 30 40 50 6010-5
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
1
ma @GeVD
Max.BrHh®aa®bbΜ+Μ-L
14 TeV LHC, L=100 fb-1
At least one b-tagTwo b-tagsNo b-tag
FIG. 22: Expected 95% C.L. sensitivity to Br(h→ aa→ bbµ+µ−) for 100 fb−1 of data at 14 TeV
LHC. The solid, dashed, and dotted lines show the limits for at least one b-tag, two b-tags, and no
b-tag respectively.
77
14 TeV LHC, L=100 fb-1
ma=30 GeV
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.4Max. Br Hh®aaL = 1
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.4
1
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.00.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Br Ha ® Τ+Τ-L
BrHa®bbL
14 TeV LHC, L=100 fb-1
ma=60 GeV
0.02
0.04
0.1
0.3
1
Max. B
r Hh®aaL=0.02
0.04
0.1
0.3
1
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.00.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Br Ha ® Τ+Τ-L
BrHa®bbL
FIG. 23: Expected 95% C.L. sensitivity to Br(h→ aa) from a h→ bbµ+µ− search as a function of
Br(a→ bb) and Br(a→ τ+τ−), assuming that the pseudoscalar coupling to leptons is proportional
to the lepton masses. We show ma = 30 GeV (left) and ma = 60 GeV (right) with 100 fb−1 of
data at the 14 TeV LHC (see text for further details). The red solid lines and blue dashed lines
present the limits for at least one b-tag and two b-tags, respectively. The corresponding expected
sensitivities to Br(h→ aa→ bbµ+µ−) are given in Fig. 20.
6. h→ 4τττ , 2τττ2µµµ
6.1. Theoretical Motivation
In this section, we consider scenarios where the Higgs can decay into a pair of scalar or
pseudoscalar bosons “a”, with a mass between 2mτ and mh/2, and with a sizable decay rate
to tau pairs. As discussed in §1.3.2, such a state can arise in 2HDM models supplemented
with a singlet scalar field, especially if ma is below the bottomonium region. A well-known
example is the NMSSM with an approximately-conserved R-symmetry (1.3.7), which is a
class of Type-II models with a very light pseudo-Goldstone boson; see also hidden valleys,
§1.3.10. Another simple example is the set of Type-III (lepton specific) 2HDM models with
modestly large tan β, with or without extra singlet fields (1.3.2). There, leptonic decays can
dominate for new scalar or pseudoscalar states of almost any mass.
Besides focusing on the mass range ma = [2mτ ,mh/2], the main assumption that we
78
will employ is that the couplings of a are in direct proportion to the lepton masses. For a
above the tau pair threshold, this means that the branching fractions to lepton pairs are in
proportion τ+τ− : µ+µ− : e+e− ' m2τ : m2
µ : m2e ' 1 : 3.5 × 10−3 : 8 × 10−8. By far the
dominant 2 → 4 fully leptonic branching fraction is then 4τ , though there is also a nearly
1% relative Br to 2τ2µ, which contains a tight 2µ resonance [103].21 We do not need to
make any explicit assumptions about the branching fractions to non-leptonic states, though
here we will not consider possible signal contributions from decays with these states. For
example, if a is above the b-quark pair threshold, a → 2b can dominate, and the 2a → 4b
and mixed 2b2τ decay modes can be much larger than 4τ . We discuss these in detail in §3
and §4, respectively.
Taus can decay either leptonically (35%) or hadronically (65%). These further subdivide
into electron/muon leptonic decays, and one- and three-prong (and very rarely five-prong)
hadronic decays. In cases where ma � mh, the two taus or prompt muons from an individual
a decay can merge according to standard isolation criteria. (Generally, ∆R ∼ 4ma/mh. E.g.,
roughly 0.3 for ma = 9 GeV.) We therefore are presented with a large number of final-state
channels containing various combinations of isolated or non-isolated leptons, in association
with a number of tau-like jets. The number of options is further multiplied when we consider
the various Higgs production modes. To get a sense of orientation, we show in Table IV
the expected raw number of events in several non-exclusive 4τ final-state channels for the
2012 LHC data set, taking as a benchmark Br(h → 2a) = 10% and Br(a → 2τ) ' 1. We
pay special attention to muons, which are easier to identify than electrons, especially with
nearby hadrons or other electrons. In Table V we show an analogous set of numbers for the
2τ2µ final-state channels.
While these raw numbers start at the tens of thousands, the various decay channels all
have tradeoffs. One of the primary concerns is that the mass-energy of the Higgs must
be distributed between a large number of final-state particles, many of which are invisible
neutrinos. A typical τ receives O(1/4) of the energy, suggesting pT (τ) ∼ 30 GeV. However,
when the τ decays, the visible pT frequently falls below normal reconstruction thresholds.
21 Lighter states, between the muon and tau pair thresholds, can decay dominantly to muons and lead to
a 4µ final state with multiple resonant features. For dedicates searches see [285, 286]. Note that in this
particular regime the leptons are highly collimated, such that searches for “lepton-jets” can also place
non-trivial bounds (see e.g. [287])
79
2012 4τ Total ≥ 1µ ≥ 2µ ≥ 3µ ≥ 2` ≥ 3` 4` 2× (≥ 1µ) (µµ/µe) + (0µ)
ggF 38000 20200 10100 700 28600 4600 580 3800 4700
VBF 3200 1700 850 60 2400 400 50 320 400
W (→ `ν)h 300 160 80 5 220 40 5 30 40
Z(→ νν)h 150 80 40 3 110 20 2 15 20
Z(→ `+`−)h 55 30 15 1 40 7 1 5 7
TABLE IV: Approximate raw numbers of events for a selection of h → 2a → 4τ decay channels,
assuming Br(h→ 2a) = 10% and Br(a→ τ+τ−) ' 1, with the 2012 LHC data set (8 TeV, 20 fb−1).
No trigger or reconstruction cuts have been applied. (Categories are not all mutually exclusive,
and leptons from W/Z decay are not being counted.)
2012 2τ2µ Total ≥ 1µ ≥ 1` 2`
ggF 266 75 120 33
VBF 22 6.3 10 2.7
W/Z(→ `’s/ν’s)h 3.5 1.0 1.6 0.4
TABLE V: Approximate raw numbers of events for a selection of 2τ decay channels within h →
2a → 2τ2µ, assuming Br(h → 2a) = 10%, Br(a → τ+τ−) ' 1, and Br(a → µ+µ−) = 0.35%, with
the 2012 LHC data set (8 TeV, 20 fb−1). No trigger or reconstruction cuts have been applied.
(Categories are not all mutually exclusive, and leptons from W/Z and a → µ+µ− decay are not
being counted.)
The leptonic decays, which are naively cleaner than the hadronic decays, have more neutrinos
and less visible energy. Therefore, while we appear to be presented with many opportunities
for clean leptonic tags, the leptons are often too soft to either trigger or reconstruct. The
fact that these leptons can be non-isolated from each other or from a nearby hadronic tau
further complicates matters. If non-isolated leptons and/or hadronic taus are considered,
backgrounds from QCD must be carefully accounted for. In particular the signal can be
faked by Υ(1S–3S) leptonic decays, for which the Br’s are a few percent, and by events with
γ∗/Z∗ emissions.
Another handle is the kinematics of the decay. In principle, each event is triply-resonant,
reconstructing to two a’s and the 125 GeV Higgs. However, the neutrinos in the tau decays
80
present a complication. In the 4τ mode, assuming that every visible τ decay can even
be identified, typically the best that we can do is to attempt to reconstruct the Higgs’s
visible mass or variants of its transverse mass folding in the E/T . There is therefore no
sharp resonance peak. Reconstruction of the a mass further suffers from the fact that
the E/T contributed by each individual a is a priori unknown. The a mass’s utility as a
discriminating variable against backgrounds is also highly reduced if ma is at or below the
bottomonium region. These difficulties highlight the major advantage of the 2τ2µ mode.
Though the overall rate is much smaller than 4τ , every event is tightly localized around
the same value of m(µ+µ−). The prompt muons also tend to be much more energetic than
the leptons produced in tau decays, significantly enhancing the relative rate once realistic
momentum cuts are applied.
The complications associated with h→ 2a→ 4τ and the low rates for 2τ2µ means that at
present these decays are difficult to constrain, and no significant limits exist from dedicated
searches. Nonetheless, the signals are distinct enough that they can ultimately be observed or
constrained, even for Br(h→ 2a→ 4τ) ∼< 10%. This will especially be true over the lifetime
of the LHC, as the higher statistics will allow better exploitation of the cleaner subleading
final-state channels. In the following subsections, we discuss ways in which theorists and
experimentalists have sought to construct viable search strategies, review existing dedicated
and non-dedicated searches, and quantify to what extent the non-dedicated searches might
place meaningful constraints. In particular, we estimate that a combination of recent CMS
3-lepton and 4-lepton searches at 8 TeV may already constrain Br(h→ 2a→ 4τ) ∼< 20–40%
for ma ∼> 15 GeV. We further estimate that a dedicated µ+µ− resonance search in 3/4-lepton
events could indirectly probe down to Br(h → 2a → 4τ) ∼< 10% with the 2012 data, even
for ma < 10 GeV.
6.2. Existing Collider Studies
Recent interest in h→ 2a→ 4τ searches was in part spurred by the observation [288] of a
“blind spot” between the direct OPAL bound of 86 GeV [289] (limited only by an unfortunate
choice of signal simulation range) and the LEP kinematic reach of approximately 115 GeV.
In particular, this would have allowed a lighter SM-like Higgs, requiring a less fine-tuned
NMSSM. However, as we now know, the SM-like Higgs was beyond LEP’s reach.
81
Subsequent search proposals at the Tevatron and LHC have exploited the fact that the
majority of the 2a decay channels contain one or more leptons. The chance of producing
a fully-hadronic final state is only about (0.65)4 = 18%. It has also been pointed out that
closeby hadronic taus (or a hadronic tau and an electron) still constitute a jet-like object with
unusually low track activity and a distinctive calorimeter pattern, leaving various options
for tagging it as a “ditau-jet”.
Below, we briefly review several recent proposals using a variety of strategies. Note that
these all typically assume Br(h → 2a → 4τ) ' 1 and masses in the range ma ' [2mτ ,mΥ],
so that the a→ 2τ decays are highly collimated.
Trilepton and collinear eµ: In Ref. [290], the h → 2a → 4τ decay mode is studied
in the context of the Tevatron. For ggF, they consider trilepton channels and channels
where one of the tau pairs decayed to a roughly collinear eµ pair (to reduce γ∗ and hadronic
decay backgrounds). The starting efficiency for trilepton from its Br is roughly 10%, but
after accounting for cuts on lepton pT (3 GeV), η (2.0), and isolation, the final efficiency
becomes only 0.5%. The estimated cross section times acceptance for ggF is then 4 fb,
or O(40 events) for Run II. The collinear eµ case, assumed to recoil against a low-track
ditau-jet, could have higher efficiency but also faces higher backgrounds that are much more
difficult to model. No attempt is made to estimate these. Utilizing the associated Wh and
Zh production modes is also suggested, though the rates tend to be even smaller. While
the rate limitations at the Tevatron make all of these searches unlikely to yield a signal,
especially since recent LHC results imply that exotic Higgs decays cannot dominate, most
of these ideas can readily be adapted to the LHC.
Two µτh-jets: In [291], the 4τ decay is studied for VBF and Wh production at LHC14,
exploiting a pair of decays a → µτh(1-prong). For VBF, the events are assumed to be
selected with a same-sign dimuon trigger allowing an offline selection of pT > 7 GeV, while
the Wh channel is triggered with the leptonic W decay. The specific requirements of the
two channels are not identical, but each demands two muons (same-sign for VBF) and two
one-prong hadronic taus, forming two approximately collinear µτ systems. For LHC14 and
mh = 125 GeV, VBF is predicted to have σ × A ∼ 20–70 fb and Wh 4–10 fb, increasing
for lighter pseudoscalars. Scaling to LHC8 with 20 fb−1, and multiplying by a reference
Br(h → 2a) = 10%, we estimate 15–55 events (VBF) and 3.7–9 events (Wh). The upper
ranges of these numbers are close to the raw counts expected from Br alone, suggesting very
82
high estimated reconstruction efficiency and/or other exclusive final-states being picked up
by the analysis. VBF is more promising in terms of raw event counts, but backgrounds are
not assessed. The Wh search is expected to be “almost background free.” No search of this
type has been performed yet.
Dimuon resonance: Ref. [103] considers the subleading decay sequence h → 2a →
2τ2µ, with a focus on identifying the sharp 2µ resonance at ma. The taus are assumed to
decay hadronically, and are simply treated as a jet with aligned E/T . The Higgs resonance is
also shown to be approximately reconstructable, though this is not used for discrimination,
as S/B is already � 1. For a 125 GeV Higgs and 7 GeV pseudoscalar a, 5 fb−1 at LHC14
is estimated to give 2σ sensitivity to Br(h→ 2a) < 10% via ggF production. Note that the
statistics from the 2012 run corresponds to about 8 fb−1 of LHC14, so this strategy may
already be capable of rather stringent limits. D0 has performed a search of this type, which
we describe in the next subsection.
Ditau-jets: In [292], a calorimeter based “ditau-jet tag” is assessed in the context of
Zh → (`+`−)(4τ). (See also [293] for tracker-based techniques tailored to boosted h → 2τ
“jets.”) For this purpose no lepton identification is used. The main ditau-jet discriminating
variables considered are the N-subjettiness ratio τ3/τ1 operating on ECAL cells and the
m/pT ratio. (A more powerful likelihood-based tag is also studied.) E/T and pT (Z) are also
applied to purify the signal. For LHC14, σ × A & 1 fb is achieved with S/B ' 0.5. Scaling
Br(h → 2a) → 10%, and σ and luminosity to a 2012-like dataset, this would yield only
O(1 event) with S/B � 1. However, the ditau-jet tag can also be considered for searches
in channels with higher cross sections.
6.3. Existing Experimental Searches and Limits
Dedicated searches for prompt 4τ and 2τ2µ final states of the Higgs have been performed
at LEP [289, 294] and at the Tevatron [285], respectively, but no significant constraints have
yet been established for mh = 125 GeV. No dedicated search has yet been performed at
the LHC. We briefly discuss the Tevatron search, and also some non-dedicated searches at
the LHC that may have sensitivity to our signal, or can serve as starting points for new
dedicated searches. We then recast a subset of the non-dedicated searches to derive new,
nontrivial limits.
83
Tevatron 2τ2µ: With 4 fb−1, D0 searched for 2τ2µ (and 4µ) in ggF events [285], based
on the strategy presented in [103]. Most accepted events pass a 4–6 GeV dimuon trigger.
Muon ID is relaxed for one of the muons in the a→ 2µ candidate, but its inner track can still
be reconstructed. The search is a bump-hunt in the muon-pair mass spectrum over the range
ma = [3.6, 19] GeV. The a → 2τ ditau-jet is minimally identified by requiring significant
E/T , possibly near a jet with low track multiplicity. Assuming unit branching fractions for
a 125 GeV Higgs, the limit is approximately a factor of 4 above the SM production cross
section at the low range of ma, and steadily weakens for larger ma.
LHC high-multiplicity leptons: A variety of high-multiplicity lepton (≥ 3`) searches
have now been completed at the LHC, mainly motivated by supersymmetry, including sce-
narios with R-parity violation. Several searches are focused on tau signals. Typical SUSY
multilepton searches demand large amounts of E/T , hadronic activity, and/or one or more
b-tags, any one of which can very efficiently eliminate the 4τ and 2τ2µHiggs signals. Still, rel-
atively more inclusive 3- and 4-lepton searches have been performed by CMS [295–298] (most
recently 9.2 fb−1 3/4-lepton and 19.5 fb−1 4-lepton at LHC8) and ATLAS [299] (4.7 fb−1
at LHC7). While these largely utilize standard lepton and tau isolation requirements, they
use quite low pT thresholds. The analysis of [298] uses particle-flow isolation, and does not
count nearby leptons against each other. The multilepton searches are especially interesting
to consider for ma ∼> 15 GeV, where the isolation issues are less severe and experimental
vetoes on low-mass dilepton pairs are avoided.
LHC same-sign dilepton: Same-sign dileptons are also a standard signal of super-
symmetry, and we expect that the usual searches are similarly unconstraining. However,
ATLAS has performed an inclusive search for new physics in same-sign dileptons using the
full 2011 data set [300]. While this again relies on lepton isolation, it is nonetheless useful
to understand what kind of limit might apply to our scenarios.
While the existing dedicated searches are not constraining, we can explore the power
of the non-dedicated searches. We keep our study as model-independent as possible by
scanning across the full kinematic range ma = [2mτ ,mh/2], and leaving Br(h → 2a) and
Br(a → τ+τ−) as free parameters. We express our results as a function of the limits on
total branching fraction Br(h→ 2a→ 4τ) = Br(h→ 2a)×Br(a→ τ+τ−)2 versus ma. Note
that while masses above mΥ are not usually considered in conjunction with an appreciable
Br to leptons, we again emphasize that they can arise easily if a is mostly composed of (or
84
mixed into) the leptonic Higgs field in the Type-III 2HDM. Depending on the a’s coupling to
b-quarks, there can also be nontrivial effects from decays and mixings into the bottomonium
sector when ma ' mΥ, which we neglect (see [123, 279] for more details).
A remaining free parameter is the CP phase of the a’s Yukawa couplings. Assuming CP
conservation, a may be a CP-odd pseudoscalar or a CP-even scalar. We fix a to be the
former. There are two consequences of favoring CP-odd over CP-even. First, this choice
can affect the relative Br’s to 2τ and 2µ, but only for ma very close to 2mτ . (E.g., for
ma = 5 GeV, the ratio Br(a → µ+µ−)/Br(a → τ+τ−) is approximately twice as large in
the CP-even case.) Second, there is an imprint of the a’s CP on the azimuthal decay angle
correlations of the two taus in the a rest frame. We expect this to be a minor effect, but it
can in principle affect isolation rates.
We simulate ggF, VBF, and (W/Z)h production of a 125 GeV Higgs decaying to 2a
in Pythia 8.176 [301], which includes a full treatment of tau spin correlations.22,23 We set
the cross sections to the values recommended by the LHC Higgs Cross Section Working
Group [302]. For ggF, we reweight the pT spectrum after showering to the NLO+NLL
predictions of HqT 2.0 [303, 304].
We do not apply a detector model nor simulate pileup. For the leptons, particle-level
should still furnish an adequate zeroth-order approximation of the full detector, including
isolation. However, lepton identification efficiencies can be important, especially for soft
leptons. CMS provides a detailed discussion and parametrizations of these efficiencies in the
appendix of [298], and we apply these for our CMS analyses. For ATLAS, which uses harder
lepton pT cuts for the analysis that we study, we coarsely assume flat efficiencies of 90% for
muons and 75% for electrons. Lepton isolation requirements vary by analysis, and we have
adjusted them on a case-by-case basis.
The hadronic taus are much more difficult to reliably model. For these, we take a min-
imalistic approach, simply “rebuilding” each hadronic tau out of its visible decay products
and applying a flat 50% identification efficiency if its visible pT exceeds 15 GeV. However,
two hadronic taus within ∆R < 0.45 (averaging between ATLAS and CMS radii) are as-
22 We thank Philip Ilten for help tracking down and fixing a bug in Pythia’s 2τ spin correlation code.23 We have also checked tth. This production channel is rare, but it gives many opportunities for lepton
production. We estimate that this represents up to a 10% contribution to the signal in the 4-lepton and
same-sign dilepton searches below, but do not explicitly incorporate it into the derivation of constraints.
85
sumed to be unidentifiable, as are hadronic taus with a lepton with pT > 2 GeV within the
same radius. This mimics the isolation failures that would occur in these cases.
For the jets and missing energy, we reconstruct the former with the anti-kT algorithm
with R = 0.45, and the latter from the 2-vector sum of all neutrinos. Jets that overlap with
identified hadronic taus are removed.
We consider constraints from three recent LHC multilepton analyses24:
1. CMS PAS SUS-12-026: 3- and 4-leptons in many exclusive bins, 9.2 fb−1 at
8 TeV [296].
2. CMS PAS SUS-13-010: 4-leptons with at least one OSSF pair, 19.5 fb−1 at
8 TeV [298].
3. ATLAS 1210.4538: Same-sign dileptons, 4.7 fb−1 at 7 TeV [300].
As a first step, we use the reported background rates to verify our treatment of the recon-
structions. We generate diboson events in Pythia, and W±W± and tt(W/Z) in MadGraph,
normalizing each to NLO. For (1) and (2), we compare 4-lepton analysis channels to our
ZZ simulation. For (1), we use the channel “OSSF2, on-Z, HT < 200 GeV, E/T < 50 GeV,
0τ , 0b.” We predict 56 events, and CMS predicts 73 ± 16. For (2), we compare to the bin
“M1 = [75, 110] GeV, M2 = [75, 110] GeV.” It is normalized to the central CMS ZZ cross
section measurement, which is about 10% higher than the NLO prediction. Weighting our
sample accordingly, we predict 130 events, and CMS predicts 150. For (3), we compare
our simulations to the “Prompt” same-sign dilepton background estimated by ATLAS. In
the (e±e±, e±µ±, µ±µ±) channels we obtain (78, 275, 165) events, and ATLAS predicts
(101± 13, 346± 43, 205± 26). In all of the comparisons there is a systematic tendency for
our predictions to underestimate the experiments by about 20%. This may be related to
our idealized treatment of isolation, and suggests that our Higgs signal estimates may be
slightly conservative.
We run the search using a number of preselected bins from the different analyses. From
the CMS multilepton searches (1) and (2), we focused on bins with high S/B. The selected
24 We do not consider the related but superceded analyses [295, 299]. We also do not consider [297], which
is very closely related to (1) and uses the same data set, but divides the analysis bins by ST instead of
by E/T . This division tends to give lower S/B in the 3-lepton bins.
86
CMS PAS SUS-12-026 (9.2 fb−1, 8 TeV)
1a) 3-lepton, OSSF0, HT < 200 GeV, E/T < 50 GeV, 0τ , 0b
1b) 3-lepton, OSSF0, HT < 200 GeV, E/T = [50, 100] GeV, 0τ , 0b
1c) 3-lepton, OSSF0, HT < 200 GeV, E/T > 100 GeV, 0τ , 0b
1d) 3-lepton, OSSF0, HT > 200 GeV, E/T > 100 GeV, 0τ , 0b
1e) 3-lepton, OSSF1, below-Z, HT < 200 GeV, E/T < 50 GeV, 0τ , 0b
1f) 3-lepton, OSSF1, below-Z, HT > 200 GeV, E/T = [50, 100] GeV, 0τ , 0b
1g) 3-lepton, OSSF1, below-Z, HT > 200 GeV, E/T > 100 GeV, 0τ , 0b
CMS PAS SUS-13-010 (19.5 fb−1, 8 TeV)
2a) M1 < 75 GeV, M2 < 75 GeV
2b) M1 = [75, 110] GeV, M2 < 75 GeV
ATLAS 1210.4548 (4.7 fb−1, 7 TeV)
3a) e±e±, m(`±`±) > 15 GeV
3b) e±µ±, m(`±`±) > 15 GeV
3c) µ±µ±, m(`±`±) > 15 GeV
TABLE VI: Analysis bins used in setting our h→ 2a→ 4τ limits.
bins are listed in Table VI. From the ATLAS same-sign dilepton search (3), we have added
positive-charge and negative-charge counts for the m(`±`±) > 15 GeV bins, but maintained
the binning in flavor. In Table VII we display the expected number of signal events for two
example mass points (ma = 12 GeV and ma = 50 GeV) and compare to the SM backgrounds
predicted by CMS and ATLAS.
We estimate 95% confidence constraints on Br(h → 2a → 4τ) using a simple CLS
analysis. Signal rates in the various experimental analysis bins come from our simulations.
Backgrounds rates, their systematic errors, and observed counts come from the experiments.
We do not apply a systematic error to the signal, as we cannot fully quantify the reliability
of our modeling of the detection and reconstruction steps. (It should be understood that our
signal predictions are merely a guide.) For our test statistic, we use the Poisson likelihood
ratio between S+B and B hypotheses, constructed using the central B expectation values.
87
Channel ma = 12 GeV ma = 50 GeV Background Observed
1a) 2.57 3.31 27± 6.7 23
1b) 0.19 1.1 17.75± 7.5 16
1c) 0.01 0.18 4.5± 2.3 3
1d) 0 0.3 1.9± 1.2 1
1e) 2.5 9.5 282± 29 258
1f) 0 0.29 4.5± 0.9 4
1g) 0.02 0.68 3.5± 0.8 2
2a) 1.48 0.2 10.4± 2 14
2b) 0.97 0.22 35± 8 30
3a) 2.8 3.7 346± 44 329
3b) 7.2 9.2 639± 71 658
3c) 3.7 5.5 247± 30 264
TABLE VII: Signal predictions and SM backgrounds in all of the analysis bins considered for
exclusions in this subsection. See Table VI for descriptions. The signal prediction here is given
fixing Br(h→ 2a→ 4τ) = 10% for reference, though it is a free parameter in setting the exclusions.
Within each pseudoexperiment, we vary the bin-by-bin expectation values for B according
to the reported systematic errors, treating them as independent and gaussian-distributed.25
Fig. 24 shows the limits that we obtain from the individual analyses, as well as from a
combination of the CMS analyses. It can be seen that Br(h → 2a → 4τ) can be excluded
at the 20–40% level provided ma ∼> 15 GeV, and that these limits are dominated by the
CMS 3-lepton bins. Below 15 GeV, standard quarkonium vetoes begin to make all of the
searches very inefficient. Below about 10 GeV, isolation cuts also begin to have a major
impact, though less significantly for analysis (2). We conclude that tight limits can already
be placed with existing data, provided that a is massive enough and has small couplings to
quarks so that a → bb does not compete. However, this leaves fully open the interesting
NMSSM-motivated region with ma ∼< mΥ.
25 Negative expectation values are reset to zero when they arise in the pseudoexperiments.
88
10 20 30 40 50 60ma in GeV
20
40
60
80
100
Br(h→aa→
4τ)(%
)
Direct Exclusions3-leptonsSSDL4-leptons3-leptons + 4-leptons
FIG. 24: Estimated exclusion of Br(h→ 2a→ 4τ) from LHC multilepton and same-sign dilepton
searches: (1) CMS 3-lepton from [296] in red, (2) CMS 4-lepton from [298] in blue, (3) ATLAS
same-sign dilepton from [300] in green. The black line shows a combination of the multilepton
searches (1) and (2). (The combination of all channels, including (3), is less constraining by several
percent.)
6.4. Proposals for New Searches at the LHC
We have focused on multilepton searches because they are relatively clean and because
existing limits could be quickly estimated. These results can be considered an update and
extension of some of the strategies proposed in [290]. The other strategies discussed in §6.2
can also have a significant role, and we might expect versions of these searches in the near
future from the LHC experiments using the 2012 data set. It will be interesting to see how
these extend the limits that we have estimated, especially for lighter ma. However, looking
ahead to possible future searches, we can concretely suggest a novel strategy: exploit the
2τ2µ final-state within 3- and 4-lepton events.26 This would supplement the more inclusive
2τ2µ search proposed in [103] and implemented in [285], representing an analysis channel
26 A similar strategy was also discussed for associated production of a with a heavy Higgs (via qq → Z∗ →Ha) in the lepton-specific 2HDM [305]. That study was aimed at ma,mH ∼> 100 GeV.
89
with extra-low backgrounds. Given the shrinking range of viable Br, and the relatively high
rate for the 2τ side of the event to produce a lepton, this type of search should offer good
long-term prospects.
We have observed in our own simulations that a surprisingly large fraction of 3-lepton
and 4-lepton events passing experimental cuts come from the 2τ2µ channel. For example,
for the point ma = 60 GeV within the bin “3-lepton, OSSF1, below-Z, HT < 200 GeV,
E/T < 50 GeV, 0τ , 0b” (1e), about 20% of the events contain a→ 2µ. Since S/B will improve
by far more than a factor of 5 by focusing in on a tight resonance peak, this suggests that
a powerful search could be constructed by utilizing m(µ+µ−) spectral information within
high-multiplicity lepton events. The resonance also offers a much safer way to search within
the ma ∼< 10 GeV region, where leptonic a decays are expected to dominate for a broader
class of models.
To construct an example of such a search, we can follow the reconstructions of the CMS
4-lepton analysis [298] (search (2) above), but removing their restriction m(`+`−) > 12 GeV
and allowing events with three or more leptons instead of exactly four. Crucially for the
low-mass region, this search uses a full particle-flow form of isolation, and does not count
leptons towards each others’ isolation cones. We include a Z-veto to help reduce Z+jets
and diboson backgrounds. We also focus on “below-Z” events, where the `+`− pair closest
to the Z mass is below 75 GeV. These vetoes have little effect on the signal efficiencies.27
In reconstructing the µ+µ− resonance, there remains a combinatoric issue when more
than one pairing of this type is possible. This ambiguity afflicts the majority of 3-lepton
and 4-lepton events containing at least one µ+µ− pair, since muons are reconstructed with
higher efficiency than electrons. (E.g., µ+µ−µ± is found more often than µ+µ−e±.) In
practice, it is possible to pick the smallest-mass pairing for ma � mh/2 and the largest-
mass pairing for ma ' mh/2. However, for ma ' mh/4, neither of these options is ideal.
Instead, we can construct a third option by using the fact that mh ' 125 GeV, that the
Higgs decays isotropically, and that it is usually produced with little transverse boost: we
27 It might also be possible to apply a E/T discriminator for this search, though we have not attempted this.
The E/T in signal events tends to be below 50 GeV. An accurate understanding of the efficacy of a E/T
cut would require a resolution model, as well as a model for the E/T distribution of backgrounds. An
approximate reconstruction of the Higgs resonance might also be possible, and usable either for further
discrimination or for verification of the source of a possible signal.
90
pick the µ+µ− pair whose trajectory would make the largest opening angle with the beam
in the Higgs rest frame, assuming pT (h) = 0. For each ma, we use the pairing choice that
gives the strongest resonance peak.28
Estimating backgrounds to such a search can be difficult, as leptons from heavy flavor
decays and from fakes can be significant contributions. We have simulated the contributions
from electroweak 3-lepton and 4-lepton production, including taus and allowing for Z∗/γ∗
down to m ∼ GeV. Given a signal that lives inside of a resolution-limited mass window of
approximately (1± 0.01)ma, these backgrounds are usually small, tallying to O(1 event) for
any ma for 2012. The dominant Z∗/γ∗+jets background can be coarsely estimated from the
sum of “below-Z” bins of analysis (1), and would constitute approximately 800 events for
m(µ+µ−) ∼> 10 GeV with 20 fb−1. (In this estimate, we conservatively do not attempt to
remove the e+e− events.) We are not given a spectral shape for this background, but if we
assume that it is not very strongly-featured, then we can estimate O(10 events) per 1 GeV
interval. We also do not know the spectrum for m(µ+µ−) ∼< 10 GeV, though the shrinking
absolute resolution on m(µ+µ−) (down to less than 100 MeV at CMS) allows the differential
background rate to grow by an order of magnitude without affecting S/B. Of course, extra
care would need to be taken in the vicinity of known hadronic resonances such as the Υ’s.
To give a sense of what might be possible with the 2012 data set, we show in Fig. 25
the limits assuming a sequence of possible background levels with m(µ+µ−) within ±1% of
ma, and neglecting systematics. Taking as reference Br(h → 2a → 4τ) = 10%, the signal
rates inside the peak vary from 8 events for ma = 4 GeV, to 25 events for ma = 60 GeV.
Depending on the background assumption and on ma, the excluded Br(h→ 2a→ 4τ) varies
from percent-scale to just above 10%. This strong level of exclusion applies even down to
ma ' 2mτ .29 We imagine that these results will only improve as data from the next run of
the LHC becomes available, provided that the multilepton triggers can be maintained at pT
thresholds comparable to their 2012 values.
28 The crossover between smallest-mass and largest-mass choices being the most effective is at ma ' 40 GeV,
and in this region the largest-opening-angle choice keeps about 15% more events in the peak. For very
low-mass resonances, this choice underperforms the smallest-mass choice by a comparable amount, and
similarly for high-mass resonances (near mh/2) relative to the largest-mass choice.29 Note that while isolation of a single lepton from the a → τ+τ− side of the event becomes progressively
more difficult for low-mass points, Br(a → µ+µ−) is also increasing. At 4 GeV, the rate has doubled.
This effect would be even more pronounced for CP-even scalars.
91
5 15 25 35 45 55ma in GeV
2
44
6
8
10
12Br(h→aa→
4τ)(%
)
Expected exclusion with 2012 data from µ+ µ− resonancesB=0B=5B=10B=20
FIG. 25: Median estimates of expected indirect exclusions on Br(h → 2a → 4τ) using the sub-
dominant (a → 2τ)(a → 2µ) channel and exploiting that leptonic branching fractions of a are
mass-ordered. The results are based on a simulated µ+µ− resonance search in ≥ 3` events, assum-
ing the 2012 data set. Since we cannot reliably predict the background under the resonance peak,
we show expected exclusions for B = 0, 5, 10 and 20 events respectively. We neglect systematic
uncertainties. (The lowest displayed mass is 4.0 GeV.)
7. h→ 4j
Standard Model decays of the Higgs boson can lead to a four-jet final state via interme-
diate vector boson decays, h → WW ∗/ZZ∗ → jjjj. Only one of the jet pairs is produced
on-resonance in this process. In this section, we discuss the distinct possibility of exotic
Higgs decays to 4j in a two-step decay process proceeding through a neutral (pseudo-)scalar
field a: h → aa → jjjj. There are then two jet-pair resonances. Below, we outline the
theoretical motivations for considering 4j decays of the Higgs, and discuss the LHC phe-
nomenology and future discovery prospects of this channel.
92
7.1. Theoretical Motivation
The h → jjjj channel has been extensively studied in the context of super Little Higgs
models [306–308] (a brief description of the Little Higgs mechanism is given in §1.3.9). The
intermediate decay product, a, is a PNGB and generally very light. In a large region of
parameter space of these models, h→ aa→ jjjj is the dominant decay mode.
Given that the Higgs mass of approximately 125 GeV requires fine-tuning of the simplest
versions of these models, one may take a simplified model approach for the cascade decay
in the presence of a light pseudoscalar (or scalar), a. Two possibilities allow for the decay
of a to jets:
(i) The pseudo(scalar) a can mix with another heavier pseudoscalar if a second Higgs
doublet is present, for example in the NMSSM or, more generally, in the 2HDM + S models,
see §1.3.2 and §1.3.6). This allows for the decay of a to SM fermions, often (depending on
the 2HDM Type) dominated by a→ bb for ma > 2mb and a→ τ−τ+ for 2mτ < ma < 2mb
for a large or moderate tan β. This leads to 4b, 2b2τ , 2b2µ, 4τ , and 2τ2µ signals as discussed
in §3, §4, §5, and §6. However, if a is very light (3mπ < ma < 2mτ ), it predominantly decays
to two (merged) light jets as the above channels are not kinematically viable.
If tan β is small (tan β . 0.5), the couplings of a to the down type quarks and charged
leptons can be very suppressed. In this case, a dominantly decays to light (mostly charm)
jets even if decays to b’s or τ ’s are kinematically allowed. Thus, the parameter space of ma
up to mh/2 is available for the exotic decay mode. A similar situation also occurs in the
“charming Higgs” scenario of the Little Higgs model [219].
(ii) New heavy BSM vector-like fermions can couple to a and, therefore, allow for its
decay into gluons or photons through loop processes [201, 262, 309]. This scenario can be
realized in Little Higgs models and extra dimensional models. For ma above a few GeV
up to mh/2, h → aa → gggg dominates over h → aa → γγgg and h → aa → γγγγ. In
general, the signal is hard to find against combinatorial background. However, large masses
of the new vector-like fermions may lead to visibly displaced vertices of a→ gg, which can
enhance the discovery potential of the channel [309]. Studies on related decay modes in this
scenario, h→ aa→ γγgg and h→ aa→ γγγγ, can be found in §8 and §9, respectively.
93
7.2. Existing Collider Studies
Before the discovery of the 125 GeV Higgs boson, much of the phenomenology of the Higgs
decaying to four jets was aimed at hiding the Higgs boson at LEP. One way to accomplish
this was in the “buried Higgs” scenario , where the decay h→ jjjj is “buried” in the large
QCD background. Indeed, the LEP bounds for this scenario are much weaker than the
bound on a SM Higgs. For mh > 90 GeV [289], ma was studied in a range where each pair
of jets from the pseudoscalar decay would be highly collimated and appear as a single jet.
There are a few existing collider studies for the 14 TeV LHC run in the four-jet final
state. In [220] the authors study the h → 4c decay mode in the context of “charming
Higgs”. We mention this study here since it does not use b-tagging and hence useful for
generic 4j decays. The study uses jet substructure to help identify the pseudoscalar as a
boosted jet while reducing the otherwise overwhelming background.
Other relevant collider studies are [267] and [218], which we briefly summarize below.
(There also exist collider studies that consider exotic Higgs production modes [266], but we
do not consider them here.)
In [267], Higgs production in association with a W boson is considered as the production
mode for mh = 120 GeV followed by the Higgs decay, h → aa → jjjj. The pre-selection
cuts in this analysis include isolated leptons with pT > 20 GeV, at least two jets with
pT > 40, 30 GeV, reconstructed leptonic W transverse mass mT < mW , and a b-jet veto to
reduce SM background. Further analysis is divided into categories depending on the mass
of a:
• ma = 4 GeV : In this case the gluons from a decay appear as a single jet to the
HCAL. ECAL variables are imposed to distinguish these merged jets from single-
pronged QCD jets. 7σ significance is possible at the LHC14 with 30 fb−1 data assuming
Br(h → aa → gggg) ∼ 100%. However, assuming a more realistic branching ratio of
Br(h→ aa→ gggg) ∼ 10% in the post Higgs discovery era, 2σ exclusion (3σ evidence)
is possible with 300 fb−1 (500 fb−1) of data at LHC14.
• ma = 8 GeV : Simple jet substructure techniques can be used for discovery. The
authors find that ∼ 3σ statistical significance can be reached with 30 fb−1 data as-
suming Br(h→ aa→ gggg) ∼ 100%. With Br(h→ aa→ gggg) ∼ 10%, however, 2σ
94
exclusion (3σ evidence) requires 1000 fb−1 (3000 fb−1) of data at LHC14.
A separate jet substructure analysis on h → aa → jjjj is also presented in [218], with
the inclusion of the tth production channel besides the V h channel, demonstrating similar
discovery potential in both channels. Here variables sensitive to the soft radiation patterns of
the color singlet a→ gg jet are employed instead of ECAL-based observables. The authors
reach a similar conclusion for discovery prospects as described above.
The above two analyses [218, 267] have exploited the fact that very light (pseudo)scalars
are boosted, leading to two fat-jets. A more recent study [265] explores the ma > 15 GeV
regime. It focuses on the substructure of fat-jets containing an entire boosted Higgs decay,
and that could be 2-, 3-, or 4-pronged. As before, Higgs production in association with
vector bosons is considered. The authors include two cases depending on the mass of the
scalar, s: (i) light scalar (15 < ms < 30 GeV) and (ii) heavy scalar (30 GeV < ms < mh/2).
In the lighter regime, the h → ss → jjjj signature with 100% branching ratio can be
observed at a significance of 3σ with 100 fb−1 of 14 TeV LHC luminosity, while for the heavy
scalar case, the significance is too small to observe with the same amount data. For a more
realistic Br(h → 2a → 4j) = 10%, 2σ exclusion for the light scalar case requires 1500 fb−1.
(Note the achievable limits become much stronger for h→ 4b with b-tags, see §3.)
7.3. Existing Experimental Searches and Limits
There are currently no existing experimental searches looking for a four-jet resonance in
the low invariant mass region, which is understandable due to the large QCD background.
Neither are there any existing searches that look for fat-jet resonances.
Overall, this is a highly challenging exotic Higgs decay channel. For ma . 5 GeV,
2σ exclusion of Br(h → 2a → 4j) = 10% requires 300 fb−1 of LHC14 data, while ma &
5 GeV requires more than 1000 fb−1. This search should be undertaken at the 14 TeV LHC
(especially for light ma, where the decay is particularly motivated), but it is not plausibly
part of the LHC7 or 8 physics program.
95
8. h→ 2γγγ2j
A relatively clean exotic decay mode of the Higgs boson is h→ 2γ2j [310]. The SM rate
for this signature is negligible: decays into 2γ2q are highly Yukawa suppressed while the
2γ2g process is loop induced. However, going beyond the SM, more possibilities arise. In
particular, here we consider Higgs boson decays to two scalars ss(′) which subsequently decay
into photons and gluons or quarks. Below we outline some possible theoretical scenarios
leading to such decays and briefly discuss their collider phenomenology.
8.1. Theoretical Motivation
There are several ways in which a SM singlet scalar decays to photons, gluons or quarks.
For example, it can do so via mixing with the Higgs boson, as in the singlet extensions
discussed in §1.3.1 and §1.3.2. This will generally give a very suppressed rate to photons
compared with that of quarks or gluons, due to the electromagnetic loop factor.
Alternatively, a singlet scalar s may couple to gluons and photons via a dimension-5
operator sF µνFµν , which arises by introducing new colored and charged vectorlike states
and coupling them to s. Such scenario can easily accommodate larger or even dominant
s → 2γ branching ratios, depending on the color vs. electric charge assignments of the
new states. As a simple example, consider adding new heavy Dirac fermions ψi along with
Yukawa couplings of the form λisψiψi. The fermions reside in a representation Ri under
SU(3)C , have electric charge Qi and mass mi. The scalar s then decays to gluons and
photons via heavy fermion loops. The resulting branching ratios satisfy
ρ =Br(s→ 2γ)
Br(s→ 2g)=
1
8
(α
αs
)2 [∑λi Q
2iN(Ri)/mi∑
λi C(Ri)/mi
]2
, (75)
where N(Ri) and C(Ri) are the dimension and normalization factor of the representation
Ri (the normalization factors of the lowest lying color representations R = 3, 6, 8 are C =
1/2, 5/2, 3). For example, one heavy down-type quark b′ and one heavy charged lepton τ ′ (a
combination which appears in a single ‘5’ multiplet of SU(5), along with a heavy neutrino),
with masses m2 and m3, and Yukawa couplings λ2 and λ3, respectively, would result in
ρ =1
18
(α
αs
)2(1 + 3
λ2
λ3
m3
m2
)2
' 0.02
(λ2
λ3
)2 ( m3
30 TeV
)2(
10 TeV
m2
)2
. (76)
96
Note that the heavy fermions need not be light in order to induce 2γ or 2g decays, as long
as the singlet s does not mix with the Higgs boson.
In principle, the 4γ mode (§9) is much cleaner than 2γ2j, which is in turn much cleaner
than the very difficult 4j (§7). However, since
Br(h→ 4γ)
Br(h→ 2γ2g)' 1
4
Br(h→ 2γ2g)
Br(h→ 4g)' 1
2
Br(s→ 2γ)
Br(s→ 2g)=ρ
2, (77)
for small enough values of ρ, as defined in Eq. (75), the 4γ rate would be too small to be
observable for a given integrated luminosity. In such a situation, which occurs if b′ and τ ′
are degenerate in mass and couplings, the 2γ2j signature may be competitive with 4γ.
Of course, the model described above is just one example of h → 2γ2g decays. Other
examples may feature two different states, s and s′, allowing for even more model-building
freedom, or decays to quarks instead gluons. Since the main focus of this section is to explore
the 2γ2j signature and propose ways to discover it at the LHC, we content ourselves with
the model described above and continue to discuss discovery reach and limits.
8.2. Existing Collider Studies
In [310], a search has been proposed for this channel, and the discovery (5σ) reach at
the 14 TeV LHC with 300 fb−1 was derived as function of the scalar mass ms and Higgs
mass mh. Gluon fusion (ggF) and W -associated production (Wh) were considered. Here
we only make use of the latter, both because it provides superior sensitivity in this analysis
and because the ggF study, which was conducted before the LHC came online, incorporated
di-photon pT thresholds which are much lower than current triggers.
The Wh analysis in [310] proceeds as follows: events are required to contain one lepton,
two photons and two jets with pT > 20 GeV and |η| < 2.5 for each of these objects.
Moreover, each object pair (jj, γγ, jγ, j`, `γ) is subject to an angular isolation criterion of
∆R > 0.4. The events are also required to have E/T > 20 GeV. Additional cuts made
were ∆φγγ < 1.5, ∆φjj < 1.3, and |mjj −mγγ| ≤ 15 GeV. The Higgs mass resolution was
assumed to be ∼ 8 − 10 GeV. The signal efficiency is claimed to be between 3% and 15%
within the relevant mass range.
Rescaling the 5σ limit at 14 TeV with 300 fb−1 to 95% CL yields the sensitivity shown as
97
8 TeV est.
14 TeV H100 fb-1L
14 TeV H300 fb-1L
pp ® Wh , 95% CL Upper Limit
20 30 40 50 60
0.010
0.100
0.050
0.020
0.200
0.030
0.015
0.150
0.070
ms @GeVD
BrH
h®
2Γ2gL
FIG. 26: Projected 95% CL limits on the branching fraction for h→ 2γ2g in associated production
(Wh), as function of ms. The blue curves refer to 300 fb−1 (solid) and 100 fb−1 (dashed), both at
the 14 TeV LHC. The dashed-dotted green curve shows a conservative estimate of the sensitivity
for 20 fb−1 at 8 TeV. All three limits build on the proposed search in [310] (300 fb−1 at 14 TeV
LHC), by scaling background with luminosity but not changing its cross section, while signal is
rescaled according to both luminosity and cross section. This underestimates the achievable 8 TeV
limit. See text for more details.
the solid blue curve in Fig. 26. An estimate for the lower luminosity30 of 100 fb−1 is shown
as the blue dashed curve. At the 14 TeV LHC, a sensitivity to Br(h→ 2γ2j) below 0.01 is
possible for part of the kinematically allowed s mass range. This study can also be used to
obtain a conservative estimate of the sensitivity at the 8 TeV LHC. We scale the production
cross section down appropriately without doing so for the background cross section. This
will underestimate the strength of the limit (assuming the efficiencies do not change by a
large amount at 8 vs. 14 TeV). The resulting 95% CL sensitivity is shown as the green dash-
dotted curve in Fig. 26. Run I data should be able to set a limit on Br(h → 2a → 2γ2j)
as low as ∼ 0.04 for some scalar masses, and likely better than that, given our pessimistic
rescaling.
Two comments are in order:
1. Note that the angular isolation cuts reduce the background, but effectively eliminate
sensitivity for ms . 20 GeV. This weakness of the proposed search might be remedied
30 Our rescalings include the assumed 10% systematic errors on the background rate [310].
98
by means of jet substructure-inspired techniques [311, 312] (see also §9).
2. Since the best limits seem to be given by associated Wh production, we do not expect
too much difficulty with triggering. However, since the threshold for the single lepton
trigger will be raised for LHC14, it would be helpful to have a trigger that requires a
lepton and a photon.
8.3. Existing Experimental Searches and Limits
There are no limits from existing searches. Potentially relevant searches, such as super-
symmetry searches and isolated photon-pair searches [313, 314] are generally insensitive to
h → 2γ2j, since (a) they employ relatively hard cuts and (b) without a cut on the total
invariant mass, the QCD background is overwhelming.
The h→ 2γ search in the VBF mode also cannot be used to place limits on 2γ2j, since
the VBF dijet tag is targeted at the forward and high rapidity gap region where a 2γ2j
signal is faint.
8.4. Proposals for Future Searches
Based on the results from [310], both the gluon fusion and the V h associated production
mode should be explored for h→ 2j2γ sensitivity at LHC Run I and II.
An interesting issue arises for very light intermediate resonances, which may result in
unexpected signatures, as follows. As mentioned above, the previous search strategy involved
an isolation cut on the photons. This spoils sensitivity for light s particles, since these
would decay to a collimated pair of photons or gluons. One would therefore be missing an
important portion of parameter space below ms ∼ 20 GeV. Using more sophisticated photon
identification inspired by jet substructure techniques will improve the situation. However,
for low enough ms . GeV , the two jets cannot be resolved, resulting in a j+ 2γ signature.
Furthermore, in [315] it was shown that for very low ms . 100 MeV the diphoton system
is so collimated that a substantial fraction of the photon pairs would deposit their energy
in a single electromagnetic calorimeter cell,31 resulting in h → 4γ mimicking 2γ and 3γ
31 The study in [315] was geared toward the ATLAS detector, but similar principles may be applied to CMS
99
signatures. While a scalar as light as to induce merged photons is generally not able to
decay into gluons (namely, hadrons), having two different states with different masses may
allow for merging both photons and gluons, resulting in signatures such as 2j + γ or j + γ.
It is therefore interesting to consider such topologies, although they are considered “im-
possible” for Higgs decays due to the “wrong” quantum numbers they seemingly possess.
These subtleties should be taken into account when conducting a future 2γ2j search. At
the trigger level the two merged photons could pass as one single photon, necessitating the
use of a single photon (possibly + jets) trigger.
9. h→ 4γγγ
Here, we consider the decay of a Higgs to four photons. In the SM, the branching fraction
for this decay is negligible, as it results from a dimension-nine operator and contains an
additional factor of α in the amplitude relative to h→ γγ. However, it can be important in
certain new physics scenarios, as we now discuss.
9.1. Theoretical Motivation
The basic decay chain that we consider is h → aa(′), a(′) → γγ. Enumerating the
possible quantum numbers of the intermediate particles is simple if they decay into two
photons and have spin less than two: they must be neutral and spin-0 by the Landau-Yang
theorem [316, 317]. The CP phase of the a(′) makes no difference phenomenologically as
long as the photon polarizations are not measured.
There are a number of theoretically well-motivated candidates for a, among them the
lighter pseudoscalar of the NMSSM, any pseudoscalar that mixes with the CP-odd Higgses
of the (N)MSSM, or a generic SM-singlet boson whose coupling to photons is mediated by
a renormalizable coupling to heavy vector-like matter. In the first two cases, the coupling
of a to light SM fermions can make the branching for a → γγ subdominant, but the low
backgrounds in 4γ can nonetheless make it an interesting final state. On the other hand, if
a couples at the renormalizable level only to the Higgs and to heavy vector-like uncolored
matter, it may only be able to decay to γγ, rendering the 4γ final state extremely important.
as well.
100
If, alternatively, the vector-like matter is colored and a→ gg is allowed, h→ ggγγ can also
be important (see §8 for details).
It is also worth noting that if ma < 2mµ, only the γγ and e+e− final states may be
kinematically allowed. The other final states in this case, 4e or 2e2γ, are broadly similar
phenomenologically to 4γ, since they involve electromagnetically interacting particles. We do
not discuss them further here, leaving a detailed study for the future [318]. Furthermore, as
we show below, for ma . 100 MeV with a decaying only to photons, a is typically long-lived
on collider scales, potentially leading to displaced vertices or missing energy. Long-lifetimes
are also possible in certain hidden valley models, even for much larger masses [31, 222].
9.2. Existing Collider Studies
The h → aa → 4γ decay chain was studied in [201], focusing on the Tevatron. In
this paper, it was pointed out that for ma . 0.025mh the a’s are boosted enough that
photons coming from their decays are collimated to the extent that they will often deposit
their energy in a single calorimeter cell, fail isolation cuts and potentially be reconstructed
as a single photon. (We discuss some of the experimental issues regarding closely-spaced
photons below, focusing on the LHC.) This light a scenario is motivated if, e.g., a is the
lightest pseudoscalar in the R-symmetric limit of the NMSSM (see §1.3.7). The results of
the analysis of [201] imply that the full Tevatron dataset is sensitive to branchings of h→ aa
at about the 0.5% level or larger, assuming Br (a→ γγ) = 1.
In [309], a detailed study was performed of the h → aa → 4γ decay at the LHC with√s = 14 TeV. The experimental cuts made in this study were that the transverse momenta of
the photons were all greater than 20 GeV, the distance between the photons was ∆R > 0.4,
the photons had rapidity |η| < 2.5, and there were two separate pairs of photons that
reconstructed the same invariant mass (the candidate a mass) to within 5 GeV. Finding
backgrounds to be negligible with these cuts, this work indicated that for a Higgs at 125 GeV,
300 fb−1 of data at the 14 TeV LHC would allow branchings Br (h→ aa) ' 5× 10−5 to be
discovered at the 5σ level for 10 GeV . ma . mh/2, assuming that the a’s decay promptly
to photons only. Rescaling this to 100 fb−1 would indicate that Br (h→ aa) ' 9 × 10−5
could be found at 5σ. The isolation cut of ∆R > 0.4 is the reason for the lower bound
on the a mass that can be accessed. A naive rescaling by the decreased luminosity and
101
Higgs production cross section of the 7 and 8 TeV datasets, assuming that the dominant
backgrounds’ cross sections do not change appreciably, implies that the current data is
sensitive to Br (h→ aa) ∼ few × 10−4. As emphasized in [309], the reach is extremely
sensitive to the value of the photon pT cut, especially in the case of a relatively light Higgs
with mh = 125 GeV.
Closely-spaced pairs of photons in h→ aa→ 4γ at the LHC when ma � mh = 125 GeV
were studied recently in [315], motivated by early hints at√s = 7, 8 TeV that the Higgs
rate to diphotons could be larger than in the SM. However, photon pairs that fail mutual
isolation criteria might or might not be detected as a single photon depending on the details
of their geometric distribution, as we now explain in detail.
As mentioned above, it was noted in [201] that at the Tevatron, for sufficiently small ma,
the pairs of photons from each a decay could be collimated enough to appear as a single
photon in the detector. If ma ∼< 10 GeV with the a’s produced in the decay of a 125 GeV
Higgs, the photons that they decay into will fail the typical isolation cut of ∆R = 0.4.
However, their energy depositions in the ECAL will normally be broader than that of a true
single photon (whose electromagnetic shower has a typical width that is material-dependent,
called its Moliere radius) and will not be tagged as a single photon. As the mass of the a
is pushed down further, the decay photons do eventually become merged enough that their
energy depositions are no longer much broader than a single photon’s. The value of ma
where this becomes important depends on the spatial resolution of the ECAL in question.
The increased granularity of the LHC detectors compared to those at the Tevatron means
that ma must be smaller at the LHC than at the Tevatron for this to be the case. At
ATLAS, a single photon’s electromagnetic shower deposits its energy in several neighboring
cells in the innermost central portion of the ECAL where the cells have a width in the η
direction of 0.0031 (corresponding to ∼ 0.5 cm) because the Moliere radius of the absorbing
material, lead, is O(cm) [319]. In Ref. [315], it was found that requiring ∆η < 0.0015
(half the smallest cell size at ATLAS) between the two nearby photons from an a decay
successfully reproduced the shower shape cuts used to distinguish single photons. For the
photons to be this closely separated, ma . 100 MeV.32 In such a case, an apparent increase
32 This critical value of ma makes sense since the LHC detectors were designed to be able to tell neutral
pions apart from single photons.
102
of ∼50% in the apparent h → 2γ rate could be achieved for Br (h→ aa) ' 10−3 to 10−2.
Other possible experimental consequences of this scenario mentioned in [315] are an increase
in the number of events containing a converted photon, a mismatch between the momentum
of charged tracks and the energy deposition in the calorimeter in conversions (when one of
the two nearby photons converts), or the appearance of apparent h →“γ + j” events when
one pair of photons is very collimated, faking a single photon, while the other is broader,
failing isolation requirements for photons and looking like a jet (with large electromagnetic
content).
Additionally, the usefulness of jet-substructure-motivated detector variables in distin-
guishing closely-separated photons (termed photon-jets generically in [320]) from single
photons and their interplay in h → 4γ faking h → γγ at the LHC was studied in de-
tail in [311, 312], dealing with both the case where the photons were merged enough to
potentially fake a single photon and that in which they are less closely merged but do still
fail isolation cuts, potentially looking like a jet. Examining h → 4γ with a Higgs mass of
120 GeV, they determined that the use of such variables could decrease the rate of photon-
jets faking single photons by a factor of over 10 while preserving at least 80% of the single
photon signal.
Most of the literature assumes that the photon pairs necessarily reconstruct two equal-
mass resonances, however this will not be the case when two different particles a and a′ are
introduced and the decay mode h→ aa′ is allowed. For an example of such a model which
assumes ma ≈ mh and ma′ ∼< GeV, which was originally designed to increase an observed
h→ γγ rate, see [321]. In general, there are no direct constraints on ma, ma′ .
We pause here to note that if a or a′ is light, it is quite natural to get a decay length that
is detector-scale. For example, parametrizing the coupling of a pseudoscalar to photons as
L =πα
MaFµνF
µν (78)
one gets a decay length, if they are produced in the decay of h at rest, of
γcτ ' 0.75 cm
(M
5 TeV
)2(1 GeV
ma
)4 ( mh
125 GeV
). (79)
It is easy to see that for ma . 100 MeV and M & 1 TeV,33 a’s decay length could be
33 We would expect such a scale if a’s coupling to photons came from integrating out charged matter above
the electroweak scale.
103
of the order of several meters. Long decay lengths are therefore a generic feature of light
pseudoscalars decaying to photons and should be kept in mind when contemplating such
signals.34
9.3. Existing Experimental Searches and Limits
A search for h → aa → 4γ in the case where ma � mh leading to very collimated pairs
of photons was performed by ATLAS on 4.9 fb−1 of 7 TeV data [322]. The search was very
similar to the standard one for h→ γγ but shower shape variable cuts were relaxed to allow
for increased acceptance of the 4γ signal. This resulted in a very good acceptance for events
coming from the h → γγ channel. Results were presented for ma = 100, 200, 400 MeV,
limiting Br (h→ aa) Br (a→ γγ)2 . 0.01 at mh = 125 GeV.35 For larger a masses, there
are no limits from collider searches.
Results from low energy experiments (see, e.g. Ref. [132]) are not constraining on this
scenario for ma & 10 MeV so long as the a’s decay promptly at the LHC [315].
9.4. Proposals for New Searches at the LHC
A search for h → 4γ using the full 7 and 8 TeV dataset of both experiments would
be highly desirable. Reference [309] indicates that 300 fb−1 of data at the 14 TeV LHC
can access values of Br (h→ aa) Br (a→ γγ)2 > 5 × 10−5 at 5σ for ma & 10 GeV. For
ma . 10 GeV, the 4γ signal can be hard to disentangle from the large QCD dijet background
and for ma . few × 100 MeV it can even look very similar to h → γγ. In these cases, as
shown in [311, 312], using detector variables from jet substructure can greatly reduce the
QCD dijet backgrounds and help to distinguish these final states, greatly increasing the
reach for h → 4γ. Thus far, most work on this signal has concentrated on either the very
light a regime where two photon pairs are very collimated or where ma > 10 GeV and the
four photons are well separated. The intermediate mass region is also well motivated and
we encourage it to be studied as well.
34 This conclusion can be modified slightly when other decay channels for a are present or if the operator
aFµν Fµν is generated below the electroweak scale. See [315] for details.
35 In the SM Br (h→ γγ) ∼ 2 × 10−3. Therefore the impact of the SM diphoton channel on this bound is
still rather small.
104
The assumption that the two intermediate particles have the same mass cuts down on
backgrounds but a more general search strategy looking for γγ bumps in h→ 4γ could help
to shed light on a scenario where this decay is dominantly mediated by two particles with
distinct masses.
Lastly, macroscopic decay lengths for the particles mediating h → aa(′) → 4γ can be
naturally realized in simple models, especially when they are light or if they are composites
from a hidden valley, which motivates searches for 4γ events where two pairs of photons
each resolve displaced vertices.
10. h→ ZZD,Za→ 4`
Below we discuss decays of the form h→ Z+X, where X denotes a non-SM light boson.
We focus on two possibilities:
1. X = ZD, a new gauge boson that acquires a mass and mixes with the SM gauge
bosons, see §1.3.5.
2. X = a, a light pseudoscalar as in the 2HDM+S and the NMSSM [189], see §1.3.2,
§1.3.7.
In both cases we are interested in a two-body decay of the Higgs boson, meaning we require
MX . 34 GeV. We outline the theoretical motivation to consider such decays and discuss
the limits by LEP, Tevatron, and LHC.
10.1. Theoretical Motivation
10.1.1. h→ ZZD
As discussed in §1.3.5, many theories feature a hidden U(1) sector with small kinetic or
mass mixing the the SM photon and Z-boson. This possibility often arises in connection
to dark matter, but similar phenomenology can also arise in more general hidden valley
models, see §1.3.10. The minimal setup Eq. (38) to generate h → ZZD decay involves a
kinetic mixing term between the hypercharge gauge boson and the dark U(1) gauge boson
Lgauge ⊃1
2
ε
cos θWBµνZ
µνD , (80)
105
where hatted quantities are fields before their kinetic terms are canonically renormalized by
a shift of Bµ. In the canonical basis, SM matter has a dark milli-charge and there is mass
mixing between the SM Z-boson and ZD. The dominantly dark vector mass eigenstate has
photon-like couplings to SM fermions (proportional to the small mixing ε) up toO(m2ZD/m2
Z)
corrections, see Eq. (47). If ZD is the lightest state in the dark sector it will decay to SM
fermions via this coupling. Prompt decay requires ε & 10−5 − 10−3 (depending on mZD),
and the largest Br(h→ ZZD) allowed from indirect constraints is ∼ 10−3, see Fig. 12.
It is also possible to have pure mass mixing after EWSB via operators of the form hZµZ ′µ,
but in this case additional constraints from parity violating interactions and rare meson
decays apply, see [164, 165, 170]. Generically, new physics similar to that which generates
kinetic mixing may also generate dimension-6 terms of the form H†HBµνZDµν/Λ2. Once
the Higgs acquires a VEV, this term yields the coupling in Eq. (80).
10.1.2. h→ Za
Next we consider the decay h→ Za. This is motivated by, for example, the 2HDM+S or
the NMSSM, where one of the CP-odd Higgs masses can be small. The relevant interaction
Lagrangian in terms of mass eigenstates h and a is given by Eq. (18) with an additional
Yukawa term:
Lint = g(a∂µh− h∂µa)Zµ − gaf iγ5fa. (81)
with g =√
(g2 + g′2)/2 sin(α − β) sin θa. The parameter α is the mixing angle between
the doublet scalars, tan β = vu/vd, and θa is the mixing angle between the uneaten doublet
pseudoscalar A and the singlet pseudoscalar. Since the Higgs coupling to ZZ and W+W− is
also proportional to sin(α− β), the SM-like rates in those channels (as well as the diphoton
mode) favor the decoupling limit α = π/2 − β. θa can be constrained by direct LEP
and Tevatron searches for the CP-odd Higgs, but the SM-like Higgs could still have large
branching fractions to Za [189]. The pseudoscalar coupling to fermions can be extracted
from Table II,
ga = sin θa tan βmf
v, for b, τ, and µ (82)
and the overall size of θa does not affect its branching ratios.
For the length of the LHC program it will likely be safe to take Br(h→ Za) = 10% as a
benchmark point. In the next section, we discuss the experimental constraints on this mode.
106
Depending on the mass of this pseudoscalar, the dominant decay mode could be bb, τ+τ−,
or µ+µ− (ss). We consider all of these cases when proposing search strategies.
10.2. Existing Collider Studies
Up to different branching ratios and some angular correlations the final states for h →
ZZD and h→ Za are identical. As such, collider studies and experimental searches for one
channel generally apply to both. The two relevant parameters to define a simplified model
for this channel are
mX and Br(h→ ZX → Zyy) (83)
for X = a, ZD and y = some SM particle, where the different a, ZD branching ratios lend
different importance to different choices of y.
There have not been many collider studies specifically performed for the h→ Za mode.
Ref. [189] pointed out that this channel may be very large in the context of the NMSSM.
Ref [323–325] discussed heavy non-SM-like Higgs decaying into Za.
More searches have been inspired by looking for a ZD. The phenomenology of a ZD
with mass mixing to the Z has recently been discussed in [164, 165, 170, 326] (see also,
e.g., [30, 166, 168, 327] for earlier work), including collider phenomenology of h → ZZD,
h→ γZD, and h→ ZDZD decays, as well as low energy constraints from colliders and fixed-
target experiments, g − 2 of the muon and electron, rare meson decays, and electroweak
precision observables (see §11 for the h→ ZDZD mode).
In [165], the authors designed a search for pp → h → ZZD → e+e−µ+µ−. The back-
grounds considered are Z(→ `+`−)jj, j faking ` (probability ∼ 0.1%) and leptonic tt (re-
ducible), as well as h → ZZ∗, Zγ∗, ZZ → 4` (irreducible). The authors of [165] assumed
only mass mixing of the form εZm2ZZ
µZDµ. For mZD ∼ 5 − 10 GeV, they find that the
14 TeV LHC has 2σ sensitivity to Br(h → ZZD → Z``) ∼ O(1) × 10−4 with 30 fb−1 of
luminosity.
10.3. Existing Experimental Searches and Limits
A light pseudoscalar a can be searched for in Υ decays at Babar [328], top decay at the
Tevatron [329], and direct single production and decay to dimuons at the LHC [330, 331].
107
These dedicated searches are discussed in other sections of this document, and their reach
depends on many parameters of the theory. There are also many constraints (most of them
not from high energy colliders) on the existence of a ZD, see Fig. 12, but there are large
regions of parameter space relevant for exotic Higgs decays that are not excluded.
Our focus is the hZX vertex (X = a, ZD). No direct search for h→ Za or ZZD has been
performed to be best of our knowledge, but there are several channels and other searches at
LEP, Tevatron, and LHC that are sensitive to this interaction term.
LEP
The hZX vertex not only gives rise to the h → ZX decay, but also opens the channel
e+e− → Z∗ → hX at LEP. Related searches include e+e− → ha, ZZ ′ → 4b [332], 4τ [332]
and 2b2τ [332]. For Br(h → Za) = 10%, these searches are not constraining because
the cross section for e+e− → Z∗ → ha is at the sub-fb level. Even without considering
any branching fraction suppression to the final states, LEP’s integrated luminosity is still
too small to be sensitive. One can also imagine more spectacular production modes such
as e+e− → ha → aaa → 6b and e+e− → ha → aaa → 6τ , which can be recast into
e+e− → ha→ Zaa→ 6b and e+e− → ha→ Zaa→ 6τ . These channels yield no constraints
even before taking into account kinematic acceptances.
Tevatron and LHC
The most relevant existing search sensitive to h → ZZD and h → Za is h → ZZ∗ → 4`
by CMS [176] and ATLAS [177], where 4` stands for electrons and muons. The clean 4`
decay makes these existing searches very sensitive to ZZD or Za decaying into leptons.
The leptonic h→ ZZ∗ searches divide the four leptons of each event into two pairs, the
“leading” pair (likely to have come from an on-shell Z) and the “subleading” pair (from the
off-shell Z∗, denoted sometimes as “Z2” or m34). The subleading dilepton mass distributions
from ATLAS and CMS are shown in Fig. 23 of [177] and Fig. 9 of [176], respectively, using
the full 20 + 5 fb−1 data set of LHC7+8. With this information it is easy to estimate limits
on h→ ZX decay.36 The new state X will contribute to h→ Z`` events in two ways, firstly
through resonant h → ZX production, and secondarily through interference with the SM
amplitude h → ZZ∗. Here we consider only resonant production, obtaining a conservative
36 The `+`− distribution in h → Z`` events can also be used to search for indirect effects of new physics
above the Higgs mass [333, 334].
108
estimate on Br(h → ZX); a study incorporating the off-shell contributions will appear in
future work.
A ZD or a decaying through some small mixing to SM particles will have a much smaller
width than ΓZ ≈ 2.6 GeV or ΓhSM≈ 4.07 MeV. Given the . 3% dilepton mass resolution
of the experiments and the subleading dilepton mass (MZ2) binning of 1.25 (2.5) GeV by
CMS (ATLAS) it is safe to assume that all of the leptonic h→ ZX events land in a single
bin MZ2 ≈ mX . Defining the total expected number of produced h→ ZZ∗ events as
NZZ∗
prod = σ(pp→ h)× L× Br(h→ ZZ∗ → 4`) (84)
the detector efficiency for dileptons from ZD/a decay can be estimated as
ε`` ≈NZZ∗
detect
NZZ∗prod
, (85)
where NZZ∗
detect is the total expected number of detected h → ZZ∗ events as extracted from
the plots of ATLAS and CMS.37 Therefore, for a given exotic Higgs decay branching ratio,
the expected number of events contributing to the mZ2 distribution is
NZXdetect = ε`` × σ(pp→ h)× L× Br(h→ ZX → 4`)
≈ NZZ∗
detect ×Br(Z → ``)
Br(h→ ZZ∗ → 4`)×[Br(h→ ZX)× Br(X → 2`)
]≈ NZZ∗
detect × 450×[Br(h→ ZX)× Br(X → 2`)
]By placing the above number of events in each mZ2 bin we extract 95% CL bounds on the
quantity in square brackets for different mX > 12 GeV, see Fig. 27.
The bound on Br(h→ ZX)×Br(X → ``) is . 10−4−10−3 for 12 GeV . mX . 34 GeV
and ` = e, µ. Using Fig. 13 we see that this already corresponds to Br(h→ ZZD) . 2×10−3,
which represents a new direct constraint on dark photons by the LHC, see Fig. 12. This limit
can be optimized with a dedicated analysis, which would make LHC measurements the most
sensitive probe of dark vector kinetic mixing in the mass range 10 GeV . mZD . mh/2.
The situation is more ambiguous for pseudoscalars. Their branching ratios are more
model-dependent in general, and their Yukawa couplings usually imply that a → ττ is
37 Due to the mZ2 > 12 GeV requirement this may slightly underestimate the efficiency. There may also
be small differences in isolation for leptonic vector vs pseudoscalar decay. However, our method suffices
for a conservative estimate of constraints.
109
CMS 20 + 5 fb-1
ATLAS 20 + 5 fb-1
15 20 25 30
0
5
10
15
mX
BrHh®ZXL´BrHX®
{{L´104
CMS 20 + 5 fb-1
mX = 23 GeV
BrHh ® Z XL ´ BrHX ® {{L = 5 ´ 10-4
ZZ, ZΓ, Z+X
SM h ® ZZ*h ® ZX
15 20 25 30 350
2
4
6
8
10
MZ2
Events�1GeV
FIG. 27: Left: 95% C.L. exclusion limit on Br(h → ZX)×Br(X → ``) for X = ZD, a, extracted
from the SM h → 4` searches (` = e, µ) assuming SM Higgs production rate and ΓX � 1 GeV.
(The lighter dashed lines indicate the expected limit. The large fluctuations in the observed limit
are a consequence of low statistics in each bin.) Right: The CMS distribution of mZ2 from [176],
overlaid with a 23 GeV h→ ZX → 4` signal.
enormously preferred over e, µ. Typical branching ratios to 4` (` = e, µ) are 10−4 − 10−3,
depending on the pseudoscalar mass. Bounds for X → ττ could also be derived from
the leptonic h → ZZ∗ searches but would be much weaker. Nevertheless this may be the
preferred discovery channel for 2HDM+S and NMSSM type models, where Br(h → Za)
could easily be 10% and Br(a→ ττ) is generally O(0.05–1), see §1.3.2.
10.4. Proposals for New Searches at the LHC
For ma,ZD > 12 GeV it seems likely that LHC14 searches inspired by h → ZZ∗ will
constrain h → Za in the a → 2τ modes, while LHC7+8 already gives significant direct
bounds to h → ZZD → 4`. A Z + lepton-jet search would be able to set strong limits
in particular for very light ZD. Care must be taken to correctly account for challenging
quarkonium backgrounds. Identifying promising search strategies will be the subject of
future work.
110
11. h→ ZDZD → 4`
11.1. Theoretical Motivation
Similarly to the discussion in the previous section, two classes of models can give a Higgs
to four-lepton signature, with two pairs of electrons and/or muons reconstructing the same
resonance:
• As discussed in §1.3.5, models with an additional U(1)D gauge group may lead to the
h → ZDZD decay, followed by ZD → `+`−. In the minimal model, the dark U(1)D is
broken by a dark scalar that does not mix with the SM Higgs. Then the kinetic mixing
operator involving the hypercharge gauge field Bµ and the ZµD field leads to only a
small branching ratio of the Higgs to two ZD gauge bosons, since it is suppressed by
the fourth power of the kinetic mixing parameter ε in Eq. (38). Much larger branching
ratios can be obtained by introducing a mixing term between the scalar that breaks the
U(1)D symmetry and the Higgs of the SM: ζ|S|2|H|2. In these models, even ζ ∼ 10−2
can lead to branching ratios for h → ZDZD as large as ∼ 10% in certain regions of
parameter space (see left panel of Fig. 15). Furthermore, more extended Higgs sectors
can also lead to sizable branching ratios. In particular, in [335] it has been shown that
Br(h→ ZDZD) ∼ 10% is possible in 2HDM+S models where the SM singlet and one
of the two Higgs doublets is charged under U(1)D.
• Many hidden valley models [31, 134] (see §1.3.10), with either fundamental or com-
posite spin-one bosons, can lead to the same final state.
• Models predicting a sizable branching ratio for h→ aa, where a is CP-odd scalar, can
also lead to the 4` signature. As presented in §1.3.2, such pseudoscalars can arise in
2HDM+S models, as for example in the approximately R-symmetric NMSSM scenarios
(see §1.3.7). However, as shown in the figures of §1.3.2, if the pseudoscalar is above
the tau threshold, it will preferentially decay into two taus, two gluons, or two quarks.
More specifically, for ma > 2mτ , Br(a → `+`−)/Br(a → ττ) ∼ m2`/m
2τ ∼ 3 × 10−3
(8 × 10−8) for ` = µ (e). For this reason, in the discussion of §. 11.3 below for the
collider constraints on the 4` signature, we will focus on models with dark gauge
bosons. Searches that exploit the more dominant 4τ and 2τ2µ decay modes of the
111
pseudoscalar pair are discussed in §6.
11.2. Existing Collider Studies
The authors of [166] investigate the feasibility of probing h → ZDZD → 4` at Tevatron
and at the LHC. In particular, they perform an estimation of the reach at the 14 TeV
LHC for several benchmark scenarios: the most interesting for us are the scenarios “A” and
“B” with mh = 120 GeV and mZD = 5 (50) GeV, respectively. They show that there are
very good prospects for detecting this Higgs decay mode, even for small Higgs branching
ratios. In particular, they focus on a Higgs produced in gluon fusion followed by the decay
h → ZDZD → e+e−µ+µ−. For Br(h → ZDZD) ∼ O(1), basic cuts on the pT and η of the
leptons, and the requirement that the 4-lepton invariant mass is close to mh, are sufficient to
lead to S/B ∼ 104 (103) (with S ∼ hundreds (tens) of fb in the case of mZD = 5 (50) GeV).
Here B is simply given by the leading diboson background. Additionally, they comment
on the fact that the reach can be improved further by vetoing events with opposite sign,
same-flavor (OSSF) lepton pairs reconstructing the Z resonance.
Furthermore, Ref. [336] shows that a light Higgs boson could have been discovered sooner
in h→ ZDZD → 4` than in the traditional decay modes, γγ, ττ , with the 7 TeV LHC data.
In particular, the authors claim that, even for Br(h → ZDZD) ∼ O(1%), one could have
expected 5 events with the first fb−1 of 7 TeV LHC data.
11.3. Existing Experimental Searches and Limits
Searches for h→ aa→ 4µ were performed by the CMS collaboration with 5 fb−1 of data
at√s = 7 TeV [286] and 20 fb−1 at
√s = 8 TeV [337]. For these searches, a refers to a
spin-0 boson with a mass between 250 MeV and 2mτ . Differences in the acceptance between
this signal and h→ ZDZD → 4µ should be modest for this range of boson masses, and the
limits from these searches at CMS are directly applicable. The 8 TeV search [337] is more
sensitive and results in a limit Br (h→ ZDZD → 4µ) < 4.7× 10−5 for mh = 125 GeV and
250 MeV < mZD < 2mτ .
For the mass range 5 GeV < mZD < mh/2, limits can be obtained from SM Higgs searches
as well as from a plot reported as part of a ZZ cross section measurement. To estimate
112
limits on exotic Higgs decays to four leptons, we use MadGraph to generate Higgs decays
to dark photons, h → ZDZD, followed by ZD → `+`−, using FeynRules [338] to construct
the dark photon model of §1.3.5. Gluon fusion signal events are generated in MadGraph 5
and matched up to one jet, with showering in Pythia.
We begin by considering the SM h → ZZ∗ analyses, which are conducted with the full
7+8 TeV datasets in both experiments. The CMS search [176] requires four isolated leptons
within kinematic acceptance, forming two OSSF pairs. The invariant mass of the OSSF pair
that minimizes |m`` −mZ | is denoted m1, while the remaining OSSF pair invariant mass is
denoted m2. The pair invariant masses must satisfy
40 GeV < m1 < 120 GeV, 12 GeV < m2 < 120 GeV. (86)
Events in which any OSSF pair has invariant mass m`` < 4 GeV are rejected, to suppress
backgrounds from quarkonia. To compare to public data, we study the set of four-lepton
events with four-lepton invariant mass in the range m4` ∈ (121.5, 130.5) GeV.
We estimate signal acceptance using the lepton efficiencies reported in [176]. Lepton
energies are smeared according to the resolutions tabulated in the Appendix of that work.
Comparing our own event yield from SM h→ ZZ∗ → 4` events to the experimental expec-
tations in Table 2 of [176] determines a final efficiency correction factor for electrons and
muons separately.
The requirement that one OSSF pair of leptons lies within a Z window means that
frequently h→ ZDZD events are not reconstructed as a pair of resonances: if mZD = 20 GeV,
for instance, a lepton pair with invariant mass near mZ can only be obtained by taking one
lepton from each ZD decay. Since events with two electrons and two muons cannot be
mispaired in this way, for mZD < 40 GeV, eeµµ events cannot contribute to the reach at all.
In Fig. 28 we show the signal 4e and 4µ events as they would appear in the m1-m2 plane,
both for mZD = 20 GeV and mZD = 40 GeV. As mZD increases, the fraction of events which
are reconstructed as a pair of resonances increases, so that when mZD = 60 GeV, nearly all
leptons are correctly paired.
To estimate limits resulting from this search, we perform a simple counting experiment.
For signals with mZD < 40 GeV, we define a signal region to be m1 < 80 GeV, m2 > 30
GeV, and set a 95% CL limit by treating all observed events in this region as signal. In this
signal region, there are one 4µ and one 2e2µ event in the 7 TeV data set, and one 4µ and one
113
mZD= 20 GeV
Σmax = 7.3 fb
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 11010
20
30
40
50
60
m1 HGeVLq
m2
HGeV
Lk
mZD= 40 GeV
Σmax = 3.4 fb
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 11010
20
30
40
50
60
m1 HGeVLqq
m2
HGeV
Lkk
(GeV)Z1m40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
(G
eV)
Z2
m
20
40
60
80
100
120
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
4e: 8TeV / 7 TeV
: 8TeV / 7 TeVµ4
: 8TeV / 7 TeVµ2e2
/
/
/
-1 = 7 (8) TeV, L = 5.1 (19.6) fbsCMS preliminary
FIG. 28: Top left and right: distribution of lepton pair invariant masses in 4e and 4µ events
according to the event selection and reconstruction criteria of [176]. The maximum cross section
(taking Br(h → ZDZD) = 1) in any 2.5 × 2.5 GeV square is indicated in each plot to establish
a scale. Left: with mZD = 20 GeV, only mispaired 4e and 4µ events pass the event selection
criteria. Right: with mZD = 40 GeV, both mispaired and correctly-paired events are evident,
with accumulation of events at the mass of the vector boson visible on the far left edge of the
plot. (In this case, 2e2µ events, not shown, also pass the selection criteria, and accumulate at the
mass of the vector boson.) Bottom: Expected distribution of lepton pair invariant masses for
h→ ZZ∗ → 4` with m4` ∈ (121.5, 130.5), overlaid with observed 7 and 8 TeV events, from [176].
2e2µ event in the 8 TeV data set. We consider 6 signal bins, one for each flavor combination
in each CM energy, and define a joint likelihood function as the normalized product of
Poisson likelihood functions L(µ) = Poisson(Nobs|µNsig). When no signal is predicted, as
for the 2e2µ channel for masses mZD < 40 GeV, we do not include the signal region in the
likelihood function. The resulting 95% CL limits are shown in the red line in Fig. 30. For
114
20 40 60 80 100
20
40
60
80
100
m1 HGeVLq
m2
HGeV
Lk
Subleading LeptonPair Mass [GeV]
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Lead
ing
Lep
ton
Pair
Mass [
GeV
]
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
Data
lllll→ZZ
1 L dt = 20 fb∫= 8 TeVs
PreliminaryATLAS
FIG. 29: Left: Distribution of lepton pair invariant masses for signal with mZD = 25 GeV for all
flavor combinations, according to the event selection and reconstruction criteria of [339]. Correctly
paired events are shown in blue and make up 55% of the accepted events, while mis-paired events,
in purple, make up the remaining 45%. Right: Distribution of selected lepton pair invariant
masses, from [339]. Note that the scales of the axes differ in the two plots.
mZD ≥ 40 GeV, we define the signal region to be mZD − 5 GeV < m1 < mZD + 5 GeV,
mZD − 5 GeV < m2 < mZD + 5 GeV. No observed events fall inside this signal region for
any value of mZD . To translate between limits on h→ ZDZD and h→ ZDZD → 4` we point
out that, as seen in Fig. 13 in §1.3.5, for 10 GeV . mZD . 60 GeV, Br (ZD → `+`−) ' 0.3.
This implies that Br (h→ ZDZD → 4`) ' 0.09× Br (h→ ZDZD).
We estimate limits on dark vectors of masses down to 5 GeV. For mZD = 5 GeV, the
daughter leptons are beginning to become collimated, with a typical ∆R`` ∼ 0.2. Leptons are
not allowed to spoil each other’s isolation criteria in Ref. [176], and we have therefore applied
the same identification efficiencies and smearings to these semi-collimated leptons as we use
for parameter points with better separated leptons. If this is a poor approximation, then
the exclusion shown for the range mZD ∼ 5 GeV will prove to be optimistic. Nevertheless,
reductions in electron efficiency of O(1) still result in interesting limits, and in the region
10 GeV . mZD . 20 GeV, the exclusions are robust.
The ATLAS SM h→ ZZ∗ → 4` search [340] is similar in spirit to the CMS search. The
major difference for our purposes is that the acceptance is tighter for the OSSF lepton pair
115
10 20 30 40 50 600.0000
0.0002
0.0004
0.0006
0.0008
0.0010
mZDqHGeVL
Brk Hh
®Z
DZ
DL
FIG. 30: Estimated 95% CL limits on the branching fraction Br(h → ZDZD) coming from CMS
h → ZZ∗ [176] (red, dotted) and ATLAS ZZ cross section [339] (blue, dashed) measurements.
Note that, as seen in Fig. 13 in §1.3.5, for this range of mZD , Br (ZD → `+`−) ' 0.3 which implies
that Br (h→ ZDZD → 4`) ' 0.09× Br (h→ ZDZD).
minimizing |m`` −mZ |,
50 GeV < m1 < 106 GeV, 12 GeV < m2 < 116 GeV. (87)
This reduces the overall acceptance for the BSM signal, leading to weaker limits than those
from CMS (as both experiments observed 4 total events in the signal region, and as ATLAS
does not report flavor information for these events).
At low masses, the best limits are found from control regions in the ATLAS ZZ cross
section measurement with 20 fb−1 of 8 TeV data [339]. Here, events are again required to
have exactly four leptons, which can be paired into two OSSF pairs. Now when there is a
choice of possible OSSF pairings, the assignment which minimizes |m1 −mZ | + |m2 −mZ |
is chosen. This still has some probability of mis-pairing h → ZDZD events, as can be seen
in Fig. 29. The invariant mass of the lepton pair with higher pT is assigned to be m1. Note
that, unlike the SM h→ ZZ∗ analyses, there is no restriction on the invariant mass of the
four leptons.
We now set limits by defining a signal region for each mass, mZD−2 GeV < m1 < mZD+2
GeV, mZD − 2 GeV < m2 < mZD + 2 GeV. Lepton efficiencies are modeled with a pT -
dependent parameterization for electrons [341, 342] and a flat efficiency for muons, and
validated against the fiducial acceptances for ZZ events quoted in [339]. At most one event
116
is observed in each 4 GeV × 4 GeV signal bin. Treating any observed event in the signal
region as signal, we obtain 95% CL limits as before.
Fig. 30 shows the resulting limits (along with those from CMS’s h → ZZ∗ search), of
order 10−3, on Higgs branching fractions to dark vector bosons that further decay to lepton
pairs. These limits, while impressive, are easy to improve at low masses by simply looking
for OSSF pairs which minimize |m1 − m2|, instead of a distance from the Z peak. As
backgrounds are already zero for most bins, improving signal acceptance is the most likely
to improve reach.
12. h→ γγγ + E/T
We consider here the signature h → γ + E/T . This signature can be usefully represented
through the decay of the Higgs into two neutral fermions, h→ χ1χ2, followed by the decay
χ2 → γχ1.
12.1. Theoretical Motivations
While our focus here is on decays to BSM particles, it is worthwhile to observe that
the signature h → γ + E/T arises as a rare decay in the SM, through the loop-induced
h → γZ, followed by Z → νν. The SM branching fraction is thus Br(h → γ + νν)|SM =
1.54 × 10−3 × 0.20 = 3.08 × 10−4 [343]. Searches for potential enhancements in h → γZ
are sensitive to the potential presence of new physics running in the loop, making this rare
Higgs decay signature one of interest for several reasons. The decay h→ γZ implies specific
kinematics for the photon and missing energy, however, which do not hold in more general
models.
One class of models that gives rise to a h→ γ+E/T signature are those with very low-scale
supersymmetry breaking [344]. Here the Higgs decays into a gravitino and a neutralino that
is dominantly bino, h→ GB, followed by the prompt decay B → γG [50]. As the gravitino
is effectively massless, this model is parameterized by one mass mB. This mass should lie
in the range mh/2 < mB < mh to obtain a large branching ratio to h → γ + E/T , as for
mh/2 > mB, the decay h→ BB will dominate, leading to a h→ 2γ + E/T signature.
This signature can also be realized in the PQ-limit of the NMSSM (see §1.3.8). Here
117
the lighter fermion χ1 is dominantly singlino, and the heavier fermion is dominantly bino.
The mass splitting between the two fermions is now much more free. However, in the
PQ-symmetric limit, a light singlino is always accompanied by a light scalar s, and for
the loop-induced branching fraction Br(χ2 → χ1γ) to be sizable, the tree level decays
Br(χ2 → s(∗)χ1 → ffχ1) must be phase-space suppressed. Thus one generically expects
mass splittings between the two neutralino species of no more than 10-20 GeV for the rate
into h → γ + E/T to be appreciable. Outside the PQ-symmetric limit of the NMSSM, or in
other extensions of the MSSM [345], special parameter cancellations are required to obtain
substantial branching fraction for the radiative decay χ2 → γχ1.
A more bottom-up approach extends the SM by two Majorana fermions, χ2 and χ1, with
a dipole coupling
δL =1
µχ2σµνB
µνχ1. (88)
Note that the presence of the hypercharge field strength B would predict a Z + E/T signal
as well, if phase space allowed it; however, in many UV completions of the dipole operator,
the mass-splitting between the fermionic states arises due to some symmetry breaking which
makes it challenging to realize mχ2 −mχ1 & mZ , and the Z mode will typically be highly
suppressed. The simplified model is then characterized by two parameters m1 and m2, where
m1 < m2 and m1 +m2 < mh.
Finally, the γ+E/T signature also appears as a subleading decay mode in models of Higgs
decay to right-handed neutrinos N [346]. Here the signature arises from h→ NN , followed
by the decay of N → γν on one side of the event and N → ννν on the other. In the
realization of [346], both of these N decay modes are highly subdominant, and the photonic
decay may be displaced.
12.2. Existing Collider Studies
An LHC study was carried out at parton level in [50]. This study targets Higgs bosons
produced in gluon fusion and estimates that 20 fb−1 of 8 TeV data would allow 95% CL
sensitivity to branching fractions ranging between Br(h → γ + E/T ) < 0.002 for mχ2 =
120 GeV, and Br(h → γ + E/T ) < 0.010 for mχ2 = 60 GeV. These results are based on
selection criteria that are not obviously compatible with current LHC triggers, however, as
118
the selection of Ref. [50] requires
45 GeV < pTγ <mh
2(89)
and no other triggerable objects. Current monophoton triggers require pT,γ > 80 GeV,
although trigger cuts for CMS parked data are more relaxed, pT,γ > 30 GeV and E/T >
25 GeV for central photons, and therefore could be relevant for this decay channel.
Replacing the cut on photon pT with one on the transverse mass of the photon and
the missing momentum gives a good separation between signal and backgrounds. Trigger
thresholds ensure that the dominant contribution to the reach comes from the high-pT
tail of the Higgs production spectrum, where the Higgs recoils against one or more hard
ISR jets. Depending on the mass difference between χ1 and χ2 and the analysis threshold
achieved in parked monophoton +E/T triggers, the best signal acceptance may be achieved
in monojet+E/T -triggered events rather than monophoton+E/T -triggered events.
12.3. Existing Experimental Searches and Limits
In (N)MSSM realizations of the nonresonant signature, there are indirect limits on the
Higgs branching fraction into neutralino-gravitino from electroweak-ino searches at Tevatron
and at LHC (see also the nonresonant 2γ + E/T signature in §13, where similar considera-
tions apply). In the case of the neutralino-gravitino realization, the lightest neutralino χ1
must have some Higgsino component in order for the coupling hχ1G to be present. In the
neutralino-singlino realization, the heavier fermion χ2 is typically dominantly B, with χ1
dominantly singlino, and the vertex hχ2χ1 again proceeds through the Higgsino component
of χ2. In both scenarios the non-zero Higgsino component implies the bino-like state should
be produced directly at hadron colliders via Drell-Yan [72], which may or may not lead to
constraints depending on the ensuing decay modes of the bino. While it is of interest to
work out these indirect limits, the surviving parameter space is multidimensional, and in
more general models, where the coupling hn2n1 arises from a dimension-five Higgs portal
coupling, the new neutral fermions do not need to have tree level couplings to the Z boson,
and no such indirect limit applies.
Very few existing collider searches place any limits on Br(h → γ + E/T ). Searches for
a hard photon plus E/T , designed to pick up invisible particles recoiling aginst a hard ISR
119
photon [347–349], target very different kinematic configurations and are not constraining.
Similar conclusions apply to the Zγ, Z → νν cross-section measurements [350, 351], which
also target high-pT photons recoiling against E/T .
Searches for supersymmetry in final states with γ + ` + E/T+jets at the LHC [352, 353]
and the Tevatron [354] can be sensitive to Wh associated production when the W decays
leptonically. Acceptance for the Higgs signal in these supersymmetry searches is small,
due to the hardness demanded of both the γ and the E/T . No limit is placed by the LHC
Wh searches in any part of the m1-m2 simplified model parameter space. The Tevatron
searches likewise place no limits, partially due (particularly for large m2 − m1) to a 1σ
excess of observed events relative to expectation. This quick limit check assumes 100%
photon efficiency; incorporating realistic photon efficiency would further weaken the search.
The general CDF search for anomalous γ +E/T+at least one jet also does not constrain the
Higgs branching fraction [355].
CMS’ supersymmetry search in the γ + E/T+jets final state [356] comes closer to being
constraining; again, no limits are placed anywhere in the m1-m2 simplified model parameter
space, but as before this lack of constraint is partially due to a 1.3σ excess of events observed
over background expectation (assuming 100% photon efficiency). An updated search in the
same final state [357] with 4.04 fb−1 of 8 TeV data requires all events to have HT > 450 GeV,
giving punishingly small signal effiency. Despite the harshness of this cut, this analysis is
beginning to gain sensitivity to the γ + E/T decay mode, as shown in Fig. 31. The reported
limits from [357] are difficult to recast due to the existence of signal contamination in a
region E/T < 100 GeV used to model the dominant QCD background. The light 125 GeV
Higgs contributes proportionately more to the control region E/T < 100 GeV than do the pair
produced neutralinos with mass 375 GeV for which the background predictions are shown.
The limits found by recasting the analysis for a light Higgs are likely overconservative to an
extent that is difficult to estimate. In Fig. 31 we show the result of performing this simple
recast. The signal region is divided into multiple exclusive bins in E/T , with background
predictions as reported for the pair-produced neutralinos. We place limits by combining the
limits from each individual bin using a Bayesian algorithm with flat priors, and marginalize
over background uncertainty according to a lognormal distribution. With perfect photon
efficiency, the 95% CL limits obtained on Br(h→ γ +E/T ) is approximately unity in a large
range of parameter space, suggesting that an analysis more tailored to the signal kinematics
120
40 GeV
20 GeV
0 GeV
0 20 40 60 80 100 1200.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
mΧ2qHGeVL
Brk Hh
®Χ
1Χ
2L
FIG. 31: Approximate 95% C.L. upper limit on (σ/σSM ) × Br (h→ χ1χ2 → γ + E/T ) from the
results of Ref. [357], for mχ1 = (0 GeV, 20 GeV, 40 GeV) < mχ2 . Solid lines correspond to 100%
photon efficiency, and dashed lines to a (flat) 80% photon efficiency.
could place meaningful limits on the branching fraction for this channel.
As with all semi-invisible signals, collider reach could be extended by forming the trans-
verse mass of the visible decay product(s), here the photon, with the missing transverse
momentum vector, and requiring this to be bounded from above as consistent with produc-
tion from an initial resonance. Much better sensitivity could be achieved if the prohibitively
hard cut on HT could be relaxed. This HT cut is necessitated by the γ+HT trigger used to
select the data in the current analysis, and is not suited well to the study of the relatively
low-pT Higgs events. Somewhat better signal acceptance is realized for the monophoton+E/T
triggers in current use for dark matter searches, though the degree of improvement depends
on the spectrum; again, monojet+E/T triggers may provide better sensitivity.
13. h→ 2γγγ + E/T
In this section we consider the decay h → 2γ + E/T . This signature can be realized in
several ways.
• First, consider the non-resonant signature where the photons come from opposite sides
of the initial two-body decay, h→ XX, followed by X → γY on each side of the event
121
with Y a detector-stable, neutral particle.
• Second is the case where the photons reconstruct an intermediate resonance, h→ XX,
with X → γγ on one side and X → invisible on the other.
• The last decay topology we consider involves the initial decay h → XY , followed by
X → Y φ, φ→ γγ with Y again appearing as missing energy in the detector.
These different cases may arise in different theoretical models, and require related but dis-
tinct strategies to observe at colliders, as we discuss below.
13.1. Theoretical Motivation
13.1.1. Non-Resonant
The non-resonant decay of the Higgs boson to two photons and missing energy may be
realized in several theoretical scenarios.
As a first example, consider gauge-mediated supersymmetry-breaking models. Here the
lightest neutralino is mainly bino, and decays via χ01 → γG. Minimal models of gauge
mediation make it difficult to obtain a bino with mB < mh/2 while keeping winos sufficiently
heavy to satisfy LEP bounds on the charginos as well as gluinos sufficiently heavy to avoid
LHC constraints. However, more general models of gauge mediation [358] can allow this
spectrum to be realized [72].
Another realization of the non-resonant 2γ + E/T signature may be obtained in the PQ
limit of the NMSSM (see §1.3.7 and §1.3.8 for more details), where a light singlino s replaces
the gravitino. In this case the photonic signature is realized through a loop-induced dipole
coupling B†σµνBµν s. There are typically several other decay modes available to the B in
these NMSSM models, in particular
B → Z(∗)s, B → a(∗)s, B → s(∗)s, (90)
where a, s are light, dominantly singlet CP-odd and CP-even scalars. The radiative decay
B → γs is typically significantly subdominant to the tree-level decays. The 2γ+E/T signature
is thus typically small compared to other exotic decay modes in the PQ NMSSM.
122
More generally, this signature may be realized by having two new (Majorana) fermions
χ1 and χ2, with a dipole coupling
δL =1
µχ†2σµνB
µνχ1 (91)
and a dimension five Higgs portal coupling c22|H|2(χ2χ2 +χ†2χ†2). In this case, both mχ1 and
mχ2 are parameters of the model. It is natural to extend this simple model to include in
addition off-diagonal couplings c12|H|2(χ2χ1 + χ†2χ†1) and couplings of the Higgs directly to
the lighter of the two new fermions, c11|H|2(χ1χ1 + χ†1χ†1). This generic model would then
also yield h → 1γ + E/T and h → E/T signatures with relative branching fractions uniquely
determined by the cij. Previous study of this topology in the MSSM has been performed in
[72] and, for the heavier MSSM Higgses, in [359]; see also [51]
13.1.2. Resonant
The 2γ+E/T final state can also occur for the decay chain h→ aa, with one intermediate
state decaying to photons, a → γγ, and the other decaying invisibly, a → inv. This can
be simply realized in a bottom-up fashion by introducing a renormalizable Higgs portal
interaction leading to a coupling of a to h, λ |H|2 a2, and also coupling a to photons and to
a neutral, detector-stable particle χ via, e.g.,
α
4πMaF µνFµν +
∂µa
M ′ χγµγ5χ. (92)
M and M ′ are the scales of the two dimension-five operators, and we have assumed that a
is a real pseudoscalar and that χ is a Dirac fermion for definiteness. For some regions of
parameter space, a → γγ and a → χχ can have comparable branching fractions, making
h→ 2γ +E/T an important final state. Another possibility arises from the decay chain h→
χ1χ2 → aχ1χ1, where a decays via the first dimension-five operator and χ1 is stable. Note,
though these two decay topologies can be achieved in the R- and PQ-limits in the NMSSM
(see §1.3.7 and §1.3.8), the branching fraction of a→ γγ tends to be small. Alternatively, a
may be light enough so that a→ ff is kinematically suppressed, in which case the lifetime
is so long that a would decay outside the detector. More general models may give a larger
a→ γγ coupling than the NMSSM.
Unlike the non-resonant case, the resonant signature has the useful additional handle
that the two photons should reconstruct ma, improving the search prospects. Additionally,
123
as ma is decreased and the intermediate particles become more boosted, a larger fraction
of the photon pairs will fail isolation cuts. For mh = 125 GeV, this becomes important for
ma . few GeV. In this case, the signal would have some overlap with that from h→ γ+E/T
considered in §12 [315].38
This simplified model can be trivially generalized to the case that the Higgs decays to two
distinct states, a1 and a2, with a1 → γγ and a2 → inv. This can proceed through a dimension-
four Higgs portal interaction, λ12|H|2a1a2, if a1 couples to photons while a2 decays invisibly.
This decay mode can dominate over h → inv. or h → 4γ if λ12 � λ11,22 where λ11,22 are
the coupling constants of the other allowed Higgs portal interactions, λ11|H|2a21 +λ22|H|2a2
2.
While, in this resonant case, we limit our study to the situation ma1 ' ma2 ≡ ma, the two
intermediate particles having different masses is a well-motivated possibility.
13.1.3. Cascade
The h→ 2γ + E/T decay can proceed through h→ χ1χ2, with χ2 → sχ1, s→ γγ if χ1 is
neutral and stable on detector scales. It is easy to write down a simple model that gives rise
to this decay chain. We can couple (Majorana) fermions χ1 and χ2 to the Higgs through a
dimension-five Higgs portal coupling as in the non-resonant case above, c12|H|2(χ2χ1+χ†2χ†1),
as well as to the scalar s through a Yukawa interaction, y12s(χ2χ1 + χ†2χ†1). Furthermore, s
can decay to two photons through the dimension-five operator sFµνFµν .39
13.2. Existing Experimental Searches and Limits
In (N)MSSM realizations of the non-resonant signature, there are indirect limits on the
Higgs branching fraction into neutralinos from general electroweak-ino searches at the Teva-
tron and at the LHC. These limits arise because the lightest neutralino χ01 must have some
Higgsino component in order for the coupling hχ01χ
01 to be present. Because of this non-zero
38 In the ma � mh regime, the relationship between the h→ 2γ+E/T and h→ γ+E/T signals parallels that
between h→ 2γ and h→ 4γ. See §9 for further details.39 The sFµνF
µν operator could arise through mixing between s and h, see for example §1.3.1, although that
would lead to a very suppressed h→ 2γ + E/T branching ratio compared to final states like bb+ E/T . For
2γ + E/T to be dominant, the sFµνFµν operator would have to be generated by a direct coupling of s to
electrically-charged matter, e.g. (heavy) vector-like leptons. For a similar model, see §8.
124
20 GeV
30 GeV
40 GeV50 GeV
60 GeV
0 10 20 30 40 50
0.02
0.05
0.10
0.20
0.50
1.00
mΧ1kHGeVL
Brk Hh
®Χ
2Χ
2L
FIG. 32: Approximate 95% C.L. upper limit on (σ/σSM ) × Br (h→ χ2χ2 → 2γ + E/T ) from the
results of Ref. [357], for multiple values of mχ2 as indicated by the text labeling the different curves.
Solid lines correspond to 100% photon efficiency, and dashed lines to a (flat) 80% photon efficiency.
Higgsino component, the lightest neutralino couples to the Z and can be produced directly
at hadron colliders via Drell-Yan. Model-dependent indirect limits on Higgs branching frac-
tions arising from Drell-Yan direct production are nontrivial [72] and an interesting topic
of study, but in the present work we confine ourselves to considering (model-independent)
direct limits, and make no assumptions about other production modes for the BSM states.
In general (non-MSSM) models, where the coupling hχ2χ2 arises from a dimension five Higgs
portal coupling, the new neutral fermion χ2 does not need to have tree-level couplings to
the Z boson, and those indirect limits do not apply.
In GMSB realizations of the non-resonant signal, sufficiently high SUSY-breaking scales
lead to a macroscopic decay length for the neutralino. This can also occur in the general
Higgs portal simplified model, for sufficiently large dipole suppression scales µ in the decay
vertex of Eq. (91). In such cases, non-pointing photon searches may be motivated or neces-
sary. Displaced signatures are beyond the scope of the present work, but are an interesting
and natural avenue for future exploration.
GMSB searches at the LHC have good prospects for discovering or excluding exotic Higgs
decays into 2γ + E/T , in both the resonant and non-resonant scenarios. The ATLAS search
for 2γ+E/T using 7 TeV data [360] has some sensitivity, setting limits of . 15% on the exotic
Higgs branching fraction over much of the parameter space. The more recent CMS study
125
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0.02
0.05
0.10
0.20
0.50
1.00
ma @GeVD
HΣ�Σ
SM
L´B
rHh®
ΓΓ+
inv.L
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0.02
0.05
0.10
0.20
0.50
1.00
ma @GeVD
HΣ�Σ
SM
L´B
rHh®
ΓΓ+
inv.L
FIG. 33: Approximate 95% C.L. upper limit on (σ/σSM ) × Br (h→ 2γ + E/T ) from the 2γ + E/T
search in [357]. The solid lines correspond to 100% photon efficiency, and the dashed lines to a
(flat) 80% photon efficiency. Left: Resonant case, where h → aa, one a decays to γγ and the
other decays invisibly. Right: Cascade case, where h → χ1χ2, χ2 → sχ1, s → γγ. Here mχ1 = 0
and mχ2 = 60 GeV (although the limit is insensitive to the particular value of mχ2 as long as it is
kinematically allowed).
using 4.04 fb−1 of 8 TeV data [357] sets the current best limits. This search selects events
with at least two photons and at least one central jet, and bins events in 5 exclusive E/T bins
beginning from a minimum of 50 GeV. We show the reach of this search in the resonant
and non-resonant cases in Figs. 32 and 33 (left), as a function of mχ1 in the non-resonant
topology and ma in the resonant topology. In Fig. 33 (right), we show the reach in the
case of the cascade topology as a function of ms, setting mχ1 = 0 and mχ2 = 60 GeV. We
find that the limit obtained in this case is not very sensitive to the value of mχ2 = 60 GeV
chosen. In all three topologies the Br(h→ 2γ +E/T ) can be constrained at the level of a few
percent over much of the parameter space. Higgs signal events are generated in MadGraph
with showering in Pythia, and jet clustering is done with FastJet. Gluon fusion is matched
out to one jet, and cross-sections for both gluon fusion and vector boson fusion processes are
set to the values determined by the LHC Higgs Working Group [302]. VBF production is
responsible for 20-25% of the signal. To obtain limits we combine individual 95% CL limits
from each of the 5 E/T bins according to a Bayesian algorithm with flat priors, marginalizing
over the background uncertainty according to a log-normal distribution.
Since searches using only 4 fb−1 of 8 TeV data and optimized for other signatures are
126
already able to place limits as stringent as O(5%) on the Higgs branching fraction into this
mode, 2γ+E/T is a good candidate for searches in the near future. The reach could be easily
extended by requiring the transverse mass of the photons and E/T to be bounded from above,
as consistent with resonant origin from the 125 GeV Higgs. In the resonant case, looking
for a peak in the γγ spectrum could offer another useful handle.
14. h→ 4 ISOLATED LEPTONS + E/T
Exotic Higgs decays into multiple charged leptons together with missing energy are less
frequently motivated by top-down model building than (e.g.) h→ aa cascade decays, but on
the other hand, they offer excellent discovery potential at the LHC, as we will demonstrate
in this and following sections.
There is some overlap between the theoretical motivations and decay topologies for dif-
ferent h→≥ 2 charged leptons +E/T +X signatures. Here we briefly discuss all the cases we
consider in this document before treating the 4`+ E/T case in detail.
Depending on the specific model under consideration, the characteristic predictions for
leptonic final states can be very different. Exotic Higgs decays h→ X1X2 (where X1,2 may
or may not be distinct species) can be divided into two main classes of topologies:
1. `+`− + E/T , which involves the topologies:
• I: X1 → non-leptonic+E/T , X2 → `+`− + E/T
• II: X1 → non-leptonic+E/T , X2 → `+`−
where the the non-leptonic part is typically either nothing (i.e., X1 stable and invisible)
or hadronic (i.e., X1 → soft jets+E/T );40 and
2. 2× `+`− + E/T , which can be achieved via the topology
• III: X1 → `+`− + E/T , X2 → `+`− + E/T .
• IV: X1 → `+`−, X2 → `+`− + E/T .
40 Charged X’s each decaying to `+ E/T are highly constrained, and not considered here.
127
Further, the cascade decays of X2 in topologies I and III may either be three-body, or
they may involve an on-shell intermediate state so that the leptons reconstruct a resonance.
Depending on the mass of this resonance, and similarly on the mass of the X2 resonance in
topologies II and IV, the leptons may be either isolated or collimated.
This gives us a plethora of experimental signatures, all of which present interesting targets
with the existing LHC dataset. We discuss theoretical models and experimental prospects
for these leptonic signatures here and in the following two sections. In the current section
we discuss final states with four isolated leptons plus missing energy; in §15 we discuss final
states with two isolated leptons plus missing energy; in §16 and §17 we consider final states
that include one or two lepton-jets, respectively; decays to leptons without E/T are discussed
in §10 and §11.
14.1. Theoretical Motivation
Several classes of models can give rise to Higgs decays to 4 isolated leptons+E/T . First,
consider models with weak-scale neutral states that have non-vanishing couplings to the
Z boson, such as exotic neutrinos or neutralinos. In this case, leptons can arise from the
three-body decay of one neutral fermion χ2 to a lighter one χ1 through an off-shell Z boson,
appearing as an opposite-sign, same flavor pair. The 4`+E/T signal then arises from cascades
of the form h → χ2χ2 → χ1Z∗χ1Z
∗ with both Z∗ leptonic. In fourth-generation neutrino
models, χ2, χ1 are the two Majorana-split halves of a Dirac neutrino state; in MSSM-like
realizations, χ2, χ1 are neutralinos. The branching fraction into 4`+ E/T is small compared
to the total branching fraction into χ2χ2: Br(h → 4` + E/T )/Br(h → χ2χ2) = Br(Z →
``)2 ≈ 0.011 (including τs). Despite the small relative branching fraction, we will see that
the 4` + E/T final state is typically more constraining than final states with fewer leptons,
due to the low backgrounds for multi-leptonic final states.
Hidden sectors with a kinetically mixed dark vector boson ZD can also realize this decay
chain [31, 232]. For instance, a hidden sector with meson-like pseudoscalar states Kv, πv,
may have a spectrum such that the heavier meson may only decay via Kv → Z∗Dπv → ffπv,
and the lighter meson πv is collider-stable. The width for this Kv decay scales like
ΓKv ≈ αDαEMε2
15 cos θ2W
(mKv −mπv)5
m4ZD
, (93)
128
where ε is the kinetic mixing between hypercharge and the dark vector boson (see §1.3.5).
The Kv meson decay can be prompt provided the ratio of the dark meson mass splitting to
the dark photon mass, (mKv−mπv)/mZD , is not particularly small. The branching fractions
into leptonic final states are much larger here than in the case where the three-body decay
is mediated by a virtual Z. For a dark vector with mZD > 2mb & 10 GeV, the branching
fraction into leptonic final states (including taus) is Br(ZD → leptonic) ≈ 45%, as discussed
in §1.3.5.
Another realization of this type of decay chain with an off-shell kinetically mixed dark
photon occurs in supersymmetric hidden sectors, with one or more hidden neutralinos. In
this case the Higgs cascade decay could begin with a Higgs decay to bino-like neutralinos B,
which in turn decay via B → Z∗Dχ01, where χ0
1 is a hidden sector neutralino [51, 148, 361].
If the dark photon is sufficiently light, the decay Kv → ZDπv → ``πv can be allowed,
and the leptons reconstruct a resonance at m`` = mZD . In the PQ-symmetric limit of the
NMSSM, light (pseudo)scalars in the spectrum similarly enable the on-shell decay χ2 →
s(a)χ1 → ``χ1. However, in the NMSSM, the branching fractions to light leptons are
suppressed by small Yukawa couplings, and Br(h → 4µ + E/T ) is cripplingly small unless
the scalar is below the τ threshhold, ms(a) < 2mτ . When the scalar is this light, it is often
produced with pT,s � ms, leading to collimated muons, but this is spectrum-dependent.
Collimated lepton pairs (lepton-jets) are discussed in §16 and §17.
In models with a nontrivial flavor structure, flavor-violating decays of the form h→ χχ→
4`+ 2ν can occur. A familiar example is Higgs decay into R-parity violating neutralinos χ1,
where χ1 decays through the leptonic LiLjek operator. In this case the two charged leptons
from the decay χ1 → `′`ν need no longer necessarily form same-flavor pairs.
Finally, another realization of the same final state occurs when the Higgs decays into
two heavy neutrinos N , which then each decay through N → W ∗` → ν`′` [129]. Similar
phenomena and final states can arise in scotogenic models [362, 363].
14.2. Existing Experimental Searches and Limits
Several LHC searches give interesting bounds on the exotic decay h→ 4`+E/T . The best
bounds when the leptons are non-resonant come from 8 TeV LHC multi-lepton searches. In
order to highlight the strong dependence on the exotic spectrum, we will present bounds for
129
two benchmark models where h→ χ2χ2 and χ2 → χ1Z∗:
• An “optimistic” benchmark scenario with relatively large mass splitting between χ2
and χ1, with M2 = 55 GeV and M1 = 20 GeV. Generally, models of this type are
allowed by the LEP precision measurement of the Z width, as long as the coupling
of the Z boson to χ1χ2 is smaller than ∼ 0.05.41 Even for couplings O(0.01), the
decay χ2 → ``χ1 is prompt. In general the Drell-Yan production of χ2χ2 will yield
an additional and model-dependent contribution to the leptons+E/T signature. For
simplicity, throughout our analysis, we will always assume that the Z coupling to
χ2χ2 is sufficiently small that the Drell-Yan contribution is much smaller than the
contribution coming from Higgs decay.
• A “pessimistic” benchmark scenario with a smaller mass splitting, M2 = 55 GeV and
M1 = 35 GeV. This particular parameter point is consistent with LEP data when
χ2, χ1 have the Z couplings of fourth-generation neutrinos [127]. The relatively small
mass difference between the exotic final states renders the final state leptons softer
and makes the benchmark more challenging at the LHC.
In both cases we take
Br(χ2 → `+`−χ1) = Br(Z(∗) → `+`−). (94)
For Higgs bosons produced in gluon fusion and assuming a reference 10% branching ratio
for h→ χ2χ2, the initial signal cross section for
pp→ h→ χ2χ2 → 4`χ1χ1 (95)
is approximately 10 fb, giving already ∼ 200 events in the present LHC data set. Below we
will indicate the excellent potential of the LHC to set bounds on the optimistic benchmark
by recasting existent searches in multi-leptons. To indicate the sensitivity of these searches
to the mass splitting between χ1, χ2 we also show that the more pessimistic benchmark,
with its much softer daughter leptons, is as yet unconstrained. Dark photon models, with
larger branching fractions to leptonic final states, face more stringent limits.
41 This number has been found under the assumption gV = gA where gV and gA are the vector and axial-
vector couplings gV Zµχ2γµχ1 and gAZ
µχ2γµγ5χ1, respectively. Similar limits can be found for gV 6= gA.
130
The multilepton analysis strategy pursued by both ATLAS and CMS divides events into
several exclusive bins depending on multiple variables. The variables most notable for our
purposes are: lepton counts N`; OSSF lepton pair invariant masses; and either (1) the value
of E/T and HT (defined as the scalar sum of the transverse energies of all jets passing the
preselection cuts) [296, 364], or (2) the value of ST (the scalar sum of E/T , HT , and the
pT of all isolated leptons) [297, 365], or (3) the value of mT in three-lepton searches [366].
A more inclusive strategy is pursued in [367], which uses only N` and lepton pair invariant
masses to define the several signal regions, while [368] introduces more specialized kinematic
constraints to target specific models of electroweak production. All of these analyses set
limits on models beyond the SM by combining individual limits from all bins, both high-
background and low-background. As reinterpreting multi-lepton searches is highly sensitive
to the details of modeling lepton acceptance, our aim here is principally to demonstrate the
interesting level of sensitivity already available to non-resonant multi-leptonic Higgs decay.
In order to estimate signal efficiency, we generate inclusive Higgs events with at least 2
leptons42 in MadGraph 5, shower them in Pythia, and cluster them in FastJet. We generate
gluon fusion production matched to one jet, VBF, and Wh associated production. The
signal production cross-sections are normalized to the values reported by the LHC Higgs
Working Group [12] (see Table I).
For CMS multilepton analyses, we are able to make a fairly precise approximation of the
signal efficiency by passing signal events through the version of PGS tuned by the Rutgers
theory group [112, 369] to more exactly simulate the CMS detector.43 We employ in addition
the modified b-tagging routines and the correction factors for electron, muon, and hadronic
tau efficiencies as established in [370].
For the ATLAS multilepton analyses, we approximate signal acceptance using the pT -
dependent lepton identification efficiencies quoted in Refs. [341, 342]. Since our signal is
characterized by relatively soft leptons, it is important to note that the electron efficiency
drops below 70% for peT . O(10) GeV while the muon identification efficiency remains high
even for very soft muons (∼ 90% for pµT & 7 GeV).
To set limits we treat each bin as a single Poisson counting experiment, marginalizing over
42 We include taus in the generation of the events. Taus are decayed using the Tauola plugin within Pythia.43 Thanks in particular to M. Park and S. Thomas.
131
background uncertainty according to a log-normal distribution, and combine bins according
to a Bayesian algorithm with flat priors on signal strength. We quote 95% CL upper bounds.
The best limits on the optimistic benchmark come from recasting the 19.6 fb−1 search
performed by CMS in four-lepton final states [367]. This search requires exactly four light
leptons in the final state, forming at least one OSSF pair. Denoting the invariant mass of
the OSSF lepton pair with mass m`` closest to mZ as M``1 and the invariant mass of the
remaining lepton pair as M``2, the events are divided into 9 exclusive categories depending
on whether M``1 and M``2 are below, above, or inside the Z window 90± 15 GeV. The vast
majority of exotic Higgs decays fall in the bin M``1 < 75 GeV, M``2 < 75 GeV. Indeed, this
is the only bin populated by gluon fusion and VBF; Wh associated production is the only
contributing process in the other bins. The combined limit from all populated bins is
Br(h→ χ2χ2) < 11%, (96)
which is also the 95% CL limit set by the single dominant bin. This translates into the
limit Br(h → 4` + E/T ) < 1.2 × 10−3, with ` = (e, µ, τ)44 for dark vectors with Br(ZD →
``) = 3 × 0.15, Br(h → KvKv) < 6.1 × 10−3. We show predicted signal events for this bin
together with the expected and observed number of events in Table VIII. To show the steep
dropoff in signal acceptance when the mass splitting in the cascade decay becomes smaller,
we also show signal predictions in the same bin for the pessimistic benchmark, where the
acceptance in gluon fusion has almost entirely disappeared.
The CMS three- and four-lepton channel search of Ref. [297], done with 9.2 fb−1 of 8 TeV
data, places a similar limit of
Br(h→ χ2χ2) < 14%. (97)
The signal dominantly populates the lowest bin in ST , namely 0 < ST < 300 GeV, for
all lepton multiplicity channels; VBF production also contributes secondarily to the next-
highest bin, 300 GeV < ST < 600 GeV. The bin with the single greatest signal contribution
is that with three identified leptons and one OSSF pair with mass below the Z window.
However, the signal-to-background ratio is better in the bin with the second-largest number
of signal events, namely the bin with four identified leptons and two OSSF pairs below the
Z window, no b’s, and no hadronic taus. This bin dominates the limit combination.
44 Note that this limit translates into Br(h→ 4`+ E/T ) < 5.4× 10−4 considering simply ` = e, µ.
132
Model Mode CMS bin Prediction [367] ATLAS bin Prediction [366]
“Optimistic” gluon fusion 50.4 2.4
(M1 = 20 GeV, VBF 56.2 7.6
M2 = 55 GeV) Wh 2.1 14
total 109 24
“Pessimistic” gluon fusion – 0.6
(M1 = 35 GeV, VBF 2.2 2.2
M2 = 55 GeV) Wh 0.2 3.6
total 2.4 6.4
TABLE VIII: Benchmark predictions for the number of events in the dominant bin (see text) in the
most constraining CMS multi-lepton search [367] (third column) and ATLAS three-lepton search
[366] (fourth column), for the optimistic and pessimistic benchmarks defined in the text, with
Br(h → χ2χ2) = 1 and Br(χ2 → χ1``) = Br(Z → ``). In the CMS bin, 14 events are observed
and 10.4 ± 2.0 are expected. In the ATLAS bin, 41.8 events are excluded at the 2σ level. Signal
expectations are reported separately for gluon fusion, VBF, and associated Wh production.
For the pessimistic benchmark, Ref. [297] limits
σ(pp→ h)
σ(pp→ h)|SMBr(h→ χ2χ2) < 1.04, (98)
or Br(h → 4` + E/T ) < 0.011. The reach is almost entirely from VBF production, with
several bins contributing significantly to the limit.
The CMS search of Ref. [296] uses the same data set as Ref. [297] but bins events in E/T
and HT instead of in ST , and sets comparable limits. Finally, the CMS searches performed
in Ref. [368] use kinematic discriminants which are tailored to the electroweak production
of heavy states, and are not sensitive to the kinematics of our exotic Higgs decay signal.
ATLAS multilepton searches [365, 366] are less sensitive than the CMS searches we have
just discussed, mainly because of the missing energy requirement (at least 50 GeV in all the
signal regions). In particular, the most sensitive search is the three-lepton search of [366]
performed with 20.7 fb−1 of 8 TeV data. The most constraining bin is the so-called SRnoZa
that requires E/T > 50 GeV and all OSSF lepton pairs to have a invariant mass below 60 GeV.
As shown in Table VIII, the main contribution to this bin comes from a Higgs produced in
133
association with a W boson. Assuming Br(h→ χ2χ2) = 1, the optimistic benchmark model
leads to only ∼ 24 events, to be compared to the 41.8 events ATLAS can exclude in this
bin.
We have checked that Zh associated production does not yield a sizable contribution to
the CMS and ATLAS multilepton analyses. In particular, these events dominantly populate
the CMS 4` bin with 75 GeV < M``1 < 105 GeV and M``2 < 75 GeV [367], in which the
signal would only be ∼ 0.2 events.
The inclusive multilepton search strategy pursued by CMS does a reasonable job of
constraining multileptonic Higgs decays when the mass splitting in the cascade decay is
sufficiently large that all four leptons can be identified at a reasonable rate. However the
rapid degradation of these limits as the mass splitting is squeezed suggests that further
adapting multilepton searches to the kinematics of exotic Higgs decays would be beneficial
in order to recover sensitivity to cascade decays with smaller mass splittings.
As the mass splitting is decreased, VBF and Wh associated production become more
important relative to gluon fusion. Although VBF production yields slightly higher-pT final
states than either gluon fusion or Wh, the Higgs exotic decay is still a lower-pT signal than
most BSM signals sought in multi-lepton searches. An analysis more tailored to the specific
kinematics of a 125 GeV Higgs could improve the reach. Imposing cuts on the transverse
mass of the leptons and the E/T could efficiently separate the Higgs signals from top and
fake backgrounds, so long as VBF is more important than Wh; it may also be beneficial to
target VBF production directly, by requiring the presence of tagging jets. In the CMS multi-
lepton searches, regardless of the mass splittings in the cascade, Wh production dominantly
populates the bin with three identified leptons, one OSSF pair with invariant mass below
the Z window, and zero τs and b-jets, in the lowest ST (HT ) bin. This is the same bin
that receives the greatest single contribution from gluon fusion as well. The background
composition in this bin contains a larger proportional contribution from fake leptons than in
bins with higher ST [297], suggesting tighter lepton ID may be beneficial in optimizing search
strategies for the relatively low-pT Higgs signal, as well as more aggressive b-jet rejection to
suppress backgrounds from top pair production. Further, ST regions designed for SM Higgs
production mechanisms could help by concentrating the VBF signal in a single bin (as gluon
fusion and Wh already are).
Finally, we comment on the case where the leptons form resonant pairs. In particular
134
let us consider the decay chains h → KvKv → 2ZD2πv → 4` + E/T , so that Br(h → 4` +
E/T )/Br(h→ BSM) = Br(ZD → `+`−)2. In general, the signal acceptance in the above multi-
lepton searches does not change substantially relative to the nonresonant signals. However,
the presence of the leptonic resonances makes these decays much easier to constrain. Once
again, limits will be highly sensitive to the BSM mass spectrum, which controls the lepton
pT s. In spectra giving rise to decays with little to no E/T , exclusions on the parent exotic
decay could approach the . 10−3 level obtained for h → 4` decays with no E/T (see §11),
with the sensitivity dropping rapidly as the spectrum is squeezed and the lepton acceptance
drops.
15. h→ 2` + E/T
In this section, we study exotic Higgs decays to final states that contain two isolated
leptons and missing energy, where the leptons do not reconstruct a resonance (we also
comment briefly on the case where they do). Models which realize these decays often also
realize decays with 4 leptons and missing energy, covered in §14.
15.1. Theoretical Motivation
In §14, we outlined many classes of theories where an initial decay h → XX is followed
by the decay X → ``E/T . One example, which produces an OSSF lepton pair, is the decay
of a neutralino χ2 through an off-shell Z boson to ``χ1. Similarly, a hidden sector meson
Kv could decay through an off-shell dark vector boson ZD into OSSF leptons plus a lighter,
detector-stable hidden meson, ``πv.
Decays where h→ 2`+E/T +X can arise in these theories in two ways. First, in a decay
that begins via h → χ2χ2, one of the χ2’s can decay to 2` + E/T while the other decays
to 2j + E/T or 2ν + E/T . Second, the Higgs will frequently also have the off-diagonal decay
h → χ2χ1, giving h → 2` + E/T . All of these decay chains result in an OSSF lepton pair
together with missing energy and potentially extra soft jets [371].
Another realization of the signature h→ 2`+ E/T is found in theories with a light sterile
neutrino, where the coupling yiNHLi gives rise to the decays h → νN , followed by both
N → `iW(∗) → `i`jν and N → νZ(∗) → ν`` [54, 371]. Decays through the (virtual)
135
W could yield opposite-sign dileptons with no flavor correlation, unlike the OSSF pair of
leptons generated through Z(∗) and Z(∗)D . These Higgs decays would also be accompanied
by Drell-Yan production of Nν, which yields a non-resonant contribution to the same final
states.
As discussed in §14, if there is a light bosonic state, the decay χ2 → χ1`` can proceed
via an intermediate on-shell state, χ2 → ZDχ1, aχ1, sχ1, such that the leptons reconstruct
a resonance. For dark vector bosons, the branching ratio to light leptons is appreciable for
any mZD < mh/2. For (pseudo-)scalars with mass-weighted couplings, such as can appear
in the the PQ-NMSSM [53], we need m(a,s) . 2mτ for muonic branching fractions to be
significant. This does not necessarily imply that the muons will be collimated, as the a(s)
is coming from a cascade decay, and depending on the particular values of m2, m1, may be
produced at relatively low pT . Nevertheless the experimental searches for high-pT isolated
leptons almost invariably require m`` > (10-12) GeV for all OSSF pairs in order to suppress
quarkonia backgrounds, making such searches insensitive to light bosons regardless of their
pT . We discuss the case of h→ (``) + E/T through a low-mass boson like a or s in §16.
Finally, we also comment that flavor-violating decays h → χχ followed by χ → `qq′
yield two leptons plus additional soft jets, albeit no missing energy. These decays can arise
from Higgs decay to neutralinos, which decay through R-parity violating operators such
as LiQjdk. They also occur in models where the Higgs decays to two heavy right-handed
neutrinos, followed by N → W (∗)` → qq′` [129]. Similar final states can arise in scotogenic
models [362, 363]. When the neutrino or neutralino is Majorana, the leptons may have the
same sign, yielding a distinctive signature.
15.2. Existing Experimental Searches and Limits
The signature of ≥ 2 leptons together with missing energy occurs in the SM decays of a
125 GeV Higgs boson: the decays of a Higgs into WW ∗, ττ and ZZ∗, with subsequent decays
of W/Z bosons and taus into leptons and neutrinos give rise to this final state. While the
decay h→ Z(∗)Z∗ → ``+νν suffers from a disadvantageous signal-to-background ratio, both
h→ WW ∗ → 2`+E/T and h→ ττ → 2`+E/T are standard SM Higgs search channels. These
SM leptons + invisible Higgs decays can, depending on kinematics, present an important
background for BSM Higgs searches in leptons plus missing energy final states. Conversely,
136
existing SM Higgs searches have sensitivity to begin to constrain BSM leptons + invisible
Higgs decays, though the tailoring of SM Higgs searches to SM decay kinematics reduces
their reach for BSM multi-lepton + missing energy decays [372]. Associated Wh production
also yields three-lepton final states, but at rates too small to be constrained by both ATLAS
and CMS multilepton searches [296, 297, 365, 366].
We will estimate the limits on a benchmark decay chain that begins with the off-diagonal
decay h→ χ1χ2, followed by χ2 → χ1 + 2` through an off-shell Z,
h→ χ1χ2 → 2`+ 2χ1. (99)
We will show results for the optimistic reference working point presented in the previous
section, where mχ1 = 20 GeV, mχ2 = 55 GeV. Limits for h→ χ2χ2 → 2`+E/T +X cascade
decays will be less constraining than those for the off-diagonal decay due to the reduced E/T .
For the decay h→ χ2χ1, depending on the masses m2,m1, the kinematics of the daughter
leptons and E/T are often broadly similar to the SM h → WW ∗ decay. Recalling that
Br(h → WW ∗ → 2`2ν) ≈ 0.26 × 0.103 and that Br(Z → ``) ≈ 0.102 (we include τs),
a Higgs with 10% branching fraction to χ1χ2 contributes roughly 40% the rate of the SM
WW ∗ dileptonic decay mode before acceptance is taken into account.
Performing a careful recast of SM h → WW ∗ searches is challenging as the sensitivity
to exotic signals is not straightforward to extract from the published experimental analy-
ses. CMS’ SM searches use multivariate discriminants to separate signal from background,
rendering a careful recast challenging except in the earliest analyses (such as [373]), which
are not constraining. Meanwhile, ATLAS’s full 7+8 TeV results [374] extract the SM signal
using a multichannel likelihood, and a recast would require use of the full likelihood func-
tion. Here our main aim is to estimate the BSM branching fraction into dileptonic modes,
which is allowed by SM Higgs searches. To this end we approximate the BSM acceptance
to be equal to the SM acceptance in the multivariate discriminants. This is a conservative
choice, but likely to be the correct order of magnitude for the particular benchmark model
we consider. For more general choices of m1, m2, the acceptance will often be significantly
reduced relative to this benchmark, as the daughter leptons may be much softer.
As in the previous section, to obtain these limits we use MadGraph 5 and Pythia 6 to
generate gluon fusion Higgs signal events, matched out to one jet. For CMS searches, we
employ a version of PGS tuned to CMS’ operating parameters. For ATLAS searches, we
137
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 2000.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
mTH2l, METLqHGeVL
1 N
dNk
dm
FIG. 34: Unit-normalized distributions of mT (2`, E/T ). The blue dashed line shows the ATLAS
prediction for SM h → WW ∗ events passing all selection criteria in both 7 and 8 TeV data
sets [374]. The purple dotted line shows the distribution for the BSM h→ 2`+ E/T events arising
from h→ χ2χ1 at the 8 TeV LHC in the benchmark model described in the text.
use parameterized lepton efficiencies as reported in the searches under consideration, with
jet clustering performed in FastJet. We neglect VBF production, as well as the VBF-like
event categories in the ATLAS and CMS searches.
The “cut-based” analysis of the full 7+8 TeV CMS 0j and 1j h → WW ∗ analysis [375]
employs a multivariate discriminant in states with same-flavor leptons to separate h→ WW ∗
signal from Drell-Yan pair production. Approximating the efficiency of this multivariate
discriminant at the SM Higgs-like value ε ≈ 0.5 on the BSM decay mode h→ χ2χ1 → 2`+E/T ,
and combining the effect of this multivariate cut with the rest of the analysis selection, we
can estimate the ratio of the BSM signal to the SM signal. Using CMS’ best fit for the SM
signal strength µ in the h→ WW ∗ mode in the 0 and 1 jet categories,
µ|fit = 0.79± 0.38, (100)
we estimateσ(pp→ h)
σ(pp→ h)|SMBr(h→ χ1χ2) . 1.0 (101)
for the reference benchmark point. Again, this limit includes an assumed factor of Br(Z →
`+`−) ∼ 0.102; decay chains with off-shell dark photons, which have leptonic branching
fractions roughly 4 times larger, are subject to the tighter constraint Br(h→ χ2χ1) . 0.24.
Meanwhile, in the ATLAS analysis [374], the final step in the analysis is fitting SM
signal and background distributions in the transverse mass variable mT (2`, E/T ). ATLAS’
138
background-subtracted predictions for the SM signal strength are shown in Fig. 34, together
with the prediction from the BSM benchmark, to indicate the degree of similarity between
the two signals in the final discriminating variable. The cuts employed in the ATLAS
analysis give comparatively less sensitivity to the BSM signal than do the CMS cuts. As a
consequence, under the simplifying assumption that the SM and BSM signals are extracted
with similar efficiency in the final fit, no limit is placed on the branching fraction into the
BSM final state.
Since the signal investigated in this section contributes almost entirely to same-flavor
final states, better sensitivity could be obtained by considering different-flavor and same-
flavor final states separately. As our recasting is highly approximate due to the lack of
information about the multivariate discriminants employed in the same-flavor final states,
we will simply mention this as one obvious avenue for improving on the approximate bound
shown in Eq. (101). In cases where the two leptons reconstruct a resonance, significantly
better limits may be possible. Meanwhile the heavy neutrino decay through a (virtual)
W , which does contribute to different-flavor final states, would show interesting departures
from flavor universality depending on the flavor mixings in the neutrino sector; this heavy
neutrino model should be looked for simultaneously in Drell-Yan and Higgs decays as the
ratio of the two signals is fixed.
16. h→ ONE LEPTON-JET + X
In this and the following section, we study exotic Higgs decays to final states that contain
one or two low-mass resonant lepton pairs. Higgs decays to collimated pairs of leptons (here
` = e, µ but not τ) have been a focus of much experimental and theoretical work. Searches
for collimated pairs of leptons are typically carried out inclusively, that is, no attempt to
reconstruct the Higgs mass is made. Thus the same searches constrain decays both with
and without the presence of E/T , although events with E/T (or other Higgs daughter products,
such as soft jets) will typically have reduced acceptance. In this section, we consider Higgs
decays to one lepton-jet+X, and in the following section we consider Higgs decays to two
lepton-jets+X. For simplicity we focus on simple lepton-jets, consisting of a collimated pair
of either electrons or muons; complex lepton-jets, which have a larger and more variable
particle content that can involve hadrons and detector-stable states as well as leptons, are
139
important and interesting signals, but less transparent to survey.
In the current section we study Higgs decays to one (simple) lepton-jet+X. Because
experimental backgrounds for a single lepton-jet are higher than those for two, traditionally
the focus has been on signals with two lepton-jets. In this section we emphasize, firstly, that
there are well-motivated signals that produce a single lepton-jet only or dominantly, and
secondly, that exclusive analyses targeting these states can yield meaningful sensitivity to
these decays.
The opening angle of two partons coming from a parent particle X can be roughly es-
timated as ∆R ' 2mX/pT,X . We can estimate pT,X ∼ 50 GeV, for a particle X coming
from the decay of a 125 GeV Higgs produced at rest. Partons from the X decay are then
typically separated by ∆R < 0.2 when mX . 5 GeV. Therefore, we expect to have a Higgs
decaying into collimated leptons that fail typical isolation cuts requiring ∆R > 0.4 if the
parent particle X has a mass of the order of 10 GeV or less. Meanwhile if the parent particle
X is produced in a cascade decay instead of directly, it will be less boosted. Clearly the
transition between having isolated leptons and collimated leptons happens smoothly as a
function of the parent particle mass mX . The reader may also be interested in §11, which
considers isolated leptons with m`` > 4 GeV.
16.1. Theoretical Motivation
One theory that realizes the decay h → (µµ) + E/T is is the PQ-symmetric limit of the
NMSSM [52, 53]. In this limit, the degrees of freedom (s, a, χ1) (scalar, pseudo-scalar, and
fermion, respectively) comprising the singlet multiplet are all light. Decays of the Higgs
to h → χ1χ2 or h → χ2χ2, with subsequent decays χ2 → χ1s, χ1a, give Higgs decay
signatures with missing energy in the final state. In an appreciable portion of parameter
space, these decays can dominate the exotic Higgs branching fraction, as detailed in §1.3.8
and Refs. [52, 53]. If s (or a) is very light, with mass order m . O(1) GeV or below,
phase space forbids decays to heavier fermions and the branching fraction into light leptons
becomes appreciable (O(10%); see, e.g., Fig. 7). The resulting signatures are dileptons +
E/T for h → χ1χ2 and four leptons + E/T for h → χ2χ2, which correspond to the type-I and
type-III decay topologies presented in §14. The s(a) is produced with a pT that is dependent
on the masses of χ2 and χ1, but in the regime where decays to muons dominate, typically
140
we will have pT (a,s) � ma,s, and the daughter muons will be collimated: ∆R`` . 0.1.
Dark vector boson models can also realize the collimated leptons+E/T Higgs decay signa-
ture. In a supersymmetric context, χ2 would now be mainly bino and χ1 a dark photino, but
in this case the off-diagonal h → χ2χ1 decay can only be important if the decay h → χ2χ2
is kinematically forbidden. In a more general hidden sector, the role of the neutralinos χi
may be played instead by hidden sector mesons Kv, πv or similar states, see §1.3.10. Dark
photon models can also yield Higgs decays of type II topology (see §14). In this case, the
Higgs decays directly to dark vectors, h→ ZDZD, followed by ZD → lepton-jet on one side
and ZD → invisible on the other. Here the invisible states are detector-stable hidden sector
states, perhaps dark photinos [51, 148, 361, 376]; the relative branching fractions to leptons,
E/T , and other SM partons are model-dependent. Similar signatures can be obtained in the
R-symmetric NMSSM if the light pseudo-scalar is coupled to a hidden sector. Another pos-
sible realization of the type II topology is provided by the decay h → ZZD, followed by
Z → νν.
Also a possibility are decays h → (µµ) + (jj), i.e., where the lepton-jet recoils against
hadronic activity. This kind of decay arises in, e.g., the R-symmetric limit of the NMSSM,
where h→ aa is followed by a→ µµ on one side of the event, and a→ hadrons on the other.
As Br(a → µµ) . 0.1 even below the τ threshold, Br(h → (µµ)(jj)) > Br(h → 2(µµ));
however the 2(µµ) final state has notably lower background, as well as sharper resolution.
Similarly, h → ZDZD → (``)(jj) leads to a lepton-jet balanced against a “weird” hadronic
jet.
Unlike the NMSSM (pseudo)scalars, dark photons have appreciable branching fractions
to light leptons even for large masses mZD . However, possible connections with cosmic
ray anomalies [135, 136] and the discrepancy between the measured and calculated muon
anomalous magnetic moment [139] have stimulated interest in dark vectors with a mass at
or below the GeV scale, thus involving collimated leptons in the final state. For discussion
of dark vectors outside the collimated regime, see §10 and §11.
16.2. Existing Collider Studies
A dedicated analysis for h → χ1χ2 → `+`− + E/T is presented in [53], which indicates
that the 8 TeV LHC could have good sensitivity to this final state when a targeted search
141
ms mh mχ1 mχ2
1 GeV 125 GeV 10 GeV 80 GeV
TABLE IX: Mass parameters of the h→ collimated leptons + E/T benchmark model.
is performed that exploits the E/T in the final state from the Higgs decay. As an illustration,
the analysis focuses on a benchmark inspired by the PQ-symmetric limit of the NMSSM,
with a light scalar(pseudoscalar) resonance s(a) set to have a mass of 1 GeV (see Table IX).
The analysis focuses on the W±h production mode where the W decays leptonically.
The resulting signature contains one hard lepton (e, µ) from the W decay, two collimated
muons, and E/T . Since there are no jets in the hard scattering process, the W+jets, Z+jets,
and tt backgrounds can be efficiently eliminated with a jet veto. The diboson WZ and
ZZ backgrounds are be removed by a dimuon mass window cut. A muon isolation cut is
applied to remove the low-mass dimuon background from meson decays, which requires the
transverse momentum sum of hadronic jets (excluding the contribution from any nearby
muons) in a cone of R = 0.4 around each muon candidate to be less than 5 GeV. Then the
light resonance can be reconstructed via the two nearby muons, and the main background
is Wγ∗/Z, with γ∗/Z decaying into µ+µ−. A trilepton trigger is assumed in the analysis,
though alternatively, one can trigger on the single lepton from the W decay. The analysis
indicates that, with 20 fb−1 data, a sensitivity S/√B > 6σ can be achieved at the 8 TeV
LHC, with
ceff =σ(h)
σ(hSM)× Br(h→ χ1χ2)× Br(χ2 → sχ1)× Br(s→ µ+µ−) = 0.1 (102)
assumed. Details of the analysis can be found in [53].
This analysis for searching for a dimuon resonance with E/T can be easily generalized
to other related possibilities. If the light resonance is a vector, then a wider range of
masses should be considered, which would result in a larger average separation between
the two daughter leptons. Another possibility arises from the decay chain h → χ2χ2 →
(µµ)(ττ) +E/T or (µµ)(bb) +E/T (for details, see §1.3.8). Obviously such decay chains can be
picked up also by the proposed collider search. Further, although in this analysis only Wh
events are considered, it is straightforward to generalize the analysis to Zh events that trigger
on the leptons from the Z decay. It is also of interest to consider gluon fusion and VBF
142
production, where lepton-jet or even dilepton triggers may yield a reasonable acceptance for
this decay mode. We leave this question for future work.
16.3. Existing Experimental Searches and Limits
Leptons arising from very light parents will typically fail standard isolation requirements,
and isolated leptons + E/T searches at LHC are not very sensitive to such scenarios. Even in
searches where lepton isolation criteria are relaxed, typically a cut is placed on the invariant
mass of any opposite-sign, same-flavor lepton pair in the event, usually m`` > 10− 12 GeV
(in some cases m`` >4 GeV), in order to suppress backgrounds from quarkonia. Thus
even if a light boson were produced with moderate to low pT , it would be missed by most
searches in leptonic final states. The potentially significant bounds come from dedicated
searches for lepton-jets, where modified lepton isolation criteria are applied, and low mass
ranges are considered. Searches for lepton-jets have been pursued by both CMS [377] and
ATLAS [84, 225, 287].
In the ATLAS analyses, either a displaced vertex for the lepton-jets [84], or at least four
muons within a single lepton-jet [287], or at least two lepton-jets are required [225, 287]. All
of these three features are absent in the scenario
h→ χ1χ2 → `+`− + E/T . (103)
The most relevant search is from the CMS search for light resonances decaying into pairs of
muons [377], which sets an upper bound on the cross-section for pp→ (φ→ µ+µ−) +X for
new bosons φ with masses below 5 GeV, using 35 pb−1 of data collected at the 7 TeV LHC.
Selection cuts of |ηµµ| < 0.9 and pT,µµ > 80 GeV are applied for the muon pair. As indicated
by the study in [53], most events arising from the decay mode of Eq. (103) cannot pass the
CMS selection cuts because the s-originating dimuon pairs are too soft, with an average
pT ∼ 40 GeV. The signal efficiency of the CMS selection cuts is ε . 0.7% for the benchmark
introduced below, and roughly of the same order for a lighter s. Then the signal cross section
is given by σhSM× ceff × ε ∼ (0.1 pb) × ceff , with ceff = σ(h)
σ(hSM)× Br(h → χ1χ2) × Br(χ2 →
sχ1)×Br(s→ µ+µ−), which well satisfies the 0.15−0.7 pb limit for masses . 1 GeV at 95%
C.L. (at the mass point m`` ∼ 1 GeV, the limit is ∼ 0.4 pb) obtained in [377]. This CMS
analysis is not updated yet to use the full LHC Run 1 data set. The experimental bounds
143
obtained by the LHC searches therefore do not place any limits on the branching fraction
Br(h→ µ+µ− + E/T ) in the collimated/low-mass regime.
16.4. Proposals for New Searches at the LHC
A search for h→ one lepton-jet (or one light resonance)+E/T is highly motivated on both
theoretical and experimental sides. Theoretically, such a decay topology can arises in a
couple of well-motivated scenarios. Experimentally, E/T and the light resonance reconstruc-
tion bring new inputs for exploring new physics. Using the full 7 and 8 TeV dataset of
both experiments, strong constraints or discovery-level sensitivity might be achieved. As is
illustrated in [53], for h→ one lepton-jet(µµ) +E/T and ceff = 0.1, a sensitivity S/√B > 6σ
can be achieved, using 20 fb−1 of data at the 8 TeV LHC. Though the light resonance is
assumed to be ∼ 1 GeV, a good sensitivity for probing a wider range of masses should be
expected.
17. h→ TWO LEPTON-JETS + X
Here we consider Higgs decays to 2 lepton-jets+X; see also the previous section for related
signatures. Again, for simplicity we concentrate on simple lepton-jets, consisting of a single
collimated electron or muon pair.
17.1. Theoretical Motivation
As mentioned in the previous section, one well-studied model for a Higgs decaying to pairs
of collimated muons is the NMSSM. Here the Higgs decays via h→ aa, with a subsequently
decaying to pairs of SM partons according to the Yukawa couplings of a Type II 2HDM
model plus a singlet. The branching ratios of a to SM partons are shown in Fig. 7. Notably,
in the NMSSM, branching fractions of a into a muon pair only reach the O(few %) level
even below the mass threshold ma < 2mτ . This necessarily places the pseudoscalar a in the
mass range to produce collimated daughter muons. Another way to realize h→ 2(µµ) +X
arises in the PQ-symmetric limit of the NMSSM (§1.3.8), where the initial Higgs decay is
into neutralinos, producing light (pseudo)scalars in subsequent cascade decays, h → χ2χ2,
144
χ2 → (a)sχ1 (see also §16). In this case the light scalar will typically be less boosted, but
in the mass range where decays to muons are relevant, the muons will generally still be
collimated.
In any singlet-augmented 2HDM model, once ma > 2mτ , the branching fraction for
a → µµ will always be suppressed by the small ratio m2µ/m
2τ ∼ 3.5 × 10−3. As discussed
in §6, the tiny branching fraction into h → 4µ is not competitive with 4τ , 2µ2τ . Thus if a
couples proportional to mass, only the range 2mµ < ma < 2mτ is of interest for the decay
h→ 4µ. Decays to electron pairs are always negligible (unless ma . 2mµ, which we do not
consider comprehensively here).
Higgs decays to collimated lepton pairs may also arise in models with light vector bosons
ZD that mix with the SM hypercharge gauge boson (see §1.3.5). The motivation to consider
mZD � mh has been driven by dark matter models that require mZD ∼ GeV or below
[135, 136]. In these models, the branching fractions of ZD depend on the SM fermion gauge
couplings, rather than on Yukawas, and therefore electron and muon pairs are produced
with comparable branching fraction unless ZD is extremely light, mZD . 2mµ. Importantly
[31], the branching fraction for h→ 2(``) remains large even when mZD > 2mb, motivating
searches for both electrons and muons in this mass range.
Dark photon models can give h→ 2 lepton-jets directly, via an initial decay h→ ZDZD,
as well as h → 2 lepton− jets + E/T . There are two distinct possibilities for obtaining E/T .
One possibility is that non-trivial showering of the dark vector boson occurs, resulting in the
production of detector-stable states in the dark sector together with leptons [31, 148, 376],
yielding complex lepton-jets containing E/T . Another possibility is that the Higgs decays
first to (e.g.) bino-like neutralinos χ2, which then (similar to [51]) decay to a dark vector
and a dark photino, χ2 → χ1ZD. Since bino-dark photino mixing is proportional to the
kinetic mixing parameter ε � 1, off-diagonal decays h → χ2χ1 → ZD2χ1 are negligible in
comparison to the unsuppressed h→ χ2χ2 → 2ZD2χ1 as long as both decays are kinemati-
cally available. In a non-supersymmetric case, the role of the neutralinos χi may be played
instead by hidden sector mesons Kv, πv or similar states [31], and the off-diagonal decays
may not be suppressed; see §1.3.10.
145
17.2. Existing Collider Studies
A collider search for h → 2a → 4µ was first proposed in [378], which took ma ≈ 215
MeV, as motivated by an excess in HyperCP measurements of Σ+ → pµ+µ− decay [379].
This study pointed out that modifications of the (then-)standard muon isolation algorithms
would be required to preserve the signal, and concluded that as long as reasonable efficiencies
for muon identification could be maintained, the signal had excellent prospects for detection.
However the dominant QCD background to this signal was not identified. A more careful
treatment of the dominant QCD backgrounds was carried out in [380], which concluded that
the signal would still be nearly background-free, with excellent prospects for discovery in
early 14 TeV LHC running (considering exotic branching fractions of tens of percent).
Ref. [381] performed a collider study of the Higgs decaying to multiple electron-jets plus
E/T through a 100 MeV ZD. Production in association with a leptonic W or Z was identified
as the most promising channel, in which the dominant background is W or Z plus QCD
jets. Ref. [381] found that an analysis distinguishing electron-jets from QCD jets using
the electromagnetic fraction and charge ratio of the jet candidates could discover the Higgs
with 1 fb−1 of 7 TeV LHC data at 95% CL with Br (h→ electron jets + E/T ) = 1 for mh <
135 GeV.
17.3. Existing Experimental Searches and Limits
The h → 2(µµ) signature has become established in experimental programs, beginning
with the D0 search [285]. The most stringent constraints on h → 2(µµ) + X are set by
the LHC, where several searches have been carried out, looking for Higgs decays to both
prompt [286, 337, 377] and displaced [84] dimuon jets. As this final state is extremely clean,
these searches are carried out inclusively, and in particular do not require m4µ = mh. Thus
these searches are sensitive to both the NMSSM-like h → aa → 2(µµ) decay topology and
the SUSY-dark vector-like topology h → χ2χ2 → 2(µµ)2χ1, where the dimuon jets are
accompanied by missing energy.
The best existing limits on prompt h → 2(µµ) + X come from the recent CMS analysis
[337], which was performed with the full 8 TeV data set. This search, like the previous CMS
146
search [286], only covers the range 2mµ < ma < 2mτ .45 This search limits
σ(pp→ 2a+X)Br(a→ µµ)2αgen < 0.24 fb (104)
at 95% CL over almost all of the mass range in consideration, where αgen is a (model-
dependent) fiducial acceptance. This translates to a limit
Br (h→ aa) Br(a→ µµ)2 < 1.2× 10−5 (105)
for mh = 125 GeV. Outside this mass range, the 35 pb−1 search of Ref. [377] extends
to 5 GeV, placing limits of σ(pp → 2a + X)Br(a → µµ)2ε < 125 fb, where ε is again an
acceptance.
The analysis of Ref. [337] has been presented in a way that is particularly easy to recast.
Limits are shown as a function of the parameter αgen, which represents the generator level
efficiency for a given signal to have at least four muons satisfying pT > 8 GeV, |η| < 2.4
and at least one muon to have pT > 17 GeV, |η| < 0.9. Ref. [337] estimates a systematic
uncertainty on the relation of αgen to the full efficiency of approximately 7.9%. We show some
reinterpretations of the bound of Eq. (104) for the cascade decay h→ χ2χ2, χ2 → a(ZD)χ1,
a(ZD) → µµ in Fig. 35. Gluon fusion Higgs events are generated in MadGraph 5 and
showered in Pythia 6, matched out to one jet. Our signal model contains no spin correlations;
a proper treatment of spin would yield small corrections to the muon acceptance. We show
results for masses ma(mZD) = 0.4 GeV (blue), 1 GeV (green), and 3 GeV (red). Dark vector
branching fractions to muons are taken according to the tree-level computation of §1.3.5,
while a reference branching fraction Br(a→ µµ) = 0.1 is assumed. Caution should be used
in interpreting the recast limits for the smallest values of m2 −m1, which is furthest from
the spectra considered in Ref. [337], as in this region the linear relation between αgen and
the full experimental efficiency may no longer hold.
Searches in electron-jets are more challenging, as backgrounds from QCD jets with a large
electromagnetic fraction are significant, and as identifying collimated electrons from BSM
physics is complicated by photon conversions. Nonetheless, searches for h → 2 electron-
jets have been carried out, targeting Wh associated production first at CDF with 5.1 fb−1
data [226] and later at ATLAS with 2.04 fb−1 of 7 TeV data [225] and inclusively for pairs
45 It also requires the two lepton-jet masses to be within 0.1 GeV of each other, meaning it is insensitive to
decays h→ a1a2 with a1 6= a2.
147
10 20 30 40 50
0.02
0.05
0.10
0.20
0.50
1.00
mΧ1qHGeVL
Br
Hh®
Χ2
Χ2L
k
10 20 30 40 500.001
0.0050.010
0.0500.100
0.5001.000
mΧ1qHGeVL
Br
Hh®
Χ2
Χ2L
k
FIG. 35: Approximate bounds on the branching fraction for h→ χ2χ2, assuming (left) Br(χ2 →
aχ1) = 1, and (right) Br(χ2 → ZDχ1) = 1, as a function of mχ1 , from [337]. Here solid lines
indicate mχ2 = 50 GeV and dotted lines mχ2 = 60 GeV, while red, green, and blue correspond to
ma,ZD = 3 GeV, 1 GeV, and 0.4 GeV respectively. We use tree-level results for Br(ZD → µµ) (see
Fig. 13) and a reference Br(a → µµ) = 0.1 (which can occur in Type IV 2HDM+S models, see
Fig. 9).
of electron-jets with 5 fb−1 of 7 TeV data [287]. It is challenging to reinterpret either of
these searches as a limit on Higgs decays to simple electron-jets, as both require > 2 tracks
per electron jet, to better reject photon conversions.
18. h→ bb + E/T
Decays of the form h→ bb+E/T can be classified into two main types, assuming a primary
two-body decay stage h→ X1X2:
I. X1 → E/T , X2 → bb+ E/T ,
II. X1 → E/T , X2 → bb.
Here, X1,2 are intermediate on-shell particles (possibly the same particle undergoing different
decays), and X1 is either stable and invisible, or decays invisibly.46 The bb pair may either be
resonant or nonresonant in general for first class of decays, though we will mainly assume that
46 A logical third option that leads to this final state would be a decay into a pair of bottom-partners, that
each subsequently decay to b+ E/T . However, this option is now almost entirely ruled out [44].
148
it is resonant. The second class is resonant by definition. Below, theoretical motivations and
experimental search strategies will be discussed. As we will see, decays with a bb resonance
might lead to an observable signal at the 14 TeV LHC.
18.1. Theoretical Motivation
• NMSSM in PQ-symmetry limit: h → χ1χ2 (topology I, resonant); see also Hidden
Valleys (§1.3.10);
Here, X1 and X2 represent the lightest and the next-to-lightest neutralinos χ1 and χ2,
respectively, with χ2 decaying to χ1 plus a scalar or pseudoscalar of the extended Higgs
sector. For details on the decay h → χ1χ2 (and h → χ2χ2) and example parameter
points, see §1.3.8 or [52, 53]. If the scalar is heavier than 2mb, its decays are typically
dominated by bb. The signatures at colliders will then be one or two b-jets + E/T ,
depending on how collimated the two b quarks are.
If mχ2 −mχ1 > mZ , the decay χ2 → χ1Z is open and the Z-boson can further decay
into a bb pair. However, this decay tends to be kinematically disfavored.
• νSM: h→ νN (topology I, resonant or non-resonant)
In the νSM, the Higgs can decay into an active neutrino and a sterile neutrino via the
neutrino portal Yukawa interaction, Eq. (25). In this case, we identify X1 = ν and
X2 = N , and the topology is the same as in the PQ-symmetric NMSSM. The mass
mixing between RH sterile neutrinos and LH active neutrinos allow the RH neutrinos
to decay via N → νZ(∗) → νbb. For more details, refer to §1.3.3.
• Other models: h→ aa, ZDZD, φ1φ2 (topology II)
In the PQ limit of the NMSSM (§1.3.7) it is possible for a to decay competitively
into singlinos as well as bottom quarks. In that case, the decay h → 2a → 2b + E/T
may be realized. Dark vector extensions (§1.3.5) will usually have an invisible decay
mode ZD → νν, so the 2b + E/T final state can occur (even if it may not be the first
discovery channel for such a model). Finally, it is of course possible to imagine a more
complicated hidden sector (see e.g. §1.3.10) where h → η1η2 and η1 → bb but η2 is
invisible or decays invisibly.
149
18.2. Existing Collider Studies
As the kinematics of h→ bb+E/T can be significantly different from the standard h→ bb
decay, dedicated analyses are required to search for it. Inspired by the PQ-limit of the
NMSSM, a dedicated study of this process has recently been performed [53]. The signals from
gluon fusion and vector boson fusion production would be overwhelmed by QCD backgrounds
(similar to SM h→ bb), even if they could be triggered on, so the analysis focuses on vector
boson associated production, triggering on leptonic boson decays. As an illustration, Zh
with Z → e+e−/µ+µ− is considered. In addition to two neutralinos χ1, χ2, the final state
includes a spin-0 state s (either scalar or pseudoscalar) that decays to bb. The study is
based on a benchmark model in the PQ-limit of the NMSSM, with its parameters presented
in Table X. The main backgrounds include Zbb, Zcc, Zc + Zc and tt+jets. The analysis
mh mχ2 mχ1 ms
125 GeV 80 GeV 10 GeV 45 GeV
TABLE X: Benchmark masses used for the h→ bb+ E/T collider analysis of [53].
includes basic detector effects but no pile-up simulation. Jet substructure tools [382] are
also applied to investigate b-tagged fat-jets. The analysis indicates that ∼ 2σ sensitivity to
Br(h→ X1X2 → 2b+E/T ) = 0.2 may be possible at the 14 TeV LHC with 300 fb−1, though
it is very challenging, and more realistic studies are needed.
18.3. Existing Experimental Searches and Limits
Although the signature h → bb + E/T is well-motivated, dedicated experimental searches
have not yet been performed. There are similarities to the SM Higgs decay h→ bb, but the
generally softer bottom quarks and lower rate make this a more challenging signal to detect.
The h → bb searches from (W → `ν)h, (Z → ``)h and (Z → νν)h production by both the
CMS and the ATLAS collaborations [383, 384] have only recently achieved SM sensitivity,
yielding no constraints on the rarer 2b + E/T final state. The (Z → νν)h search could in
principle be sensitive to this exotic Higgs decay from ggF and VBF production channels,
with the orders-of-magnitude larger production rate offsetting the subdominant exotic Br.
150
However, the jet pT and E/T cuts in the standard Zh analysis are quite high and would likely
eliminate almost all of the signal. This underlines the need for dedicated searches.
19. h→ τττ+τττ− + E/T
h→ X1X2 → τ+τ− +E/T is another new class of exotic Higgs decays. As for the 2b+E/T
final state of §18, the two most important non-excluded topologies are
I. X1 → E/T , X2 → τ+τ− + E/T
II. X1 → E/T , X2 → τ+τ−.
Here X1,2 are intermediate particles, which can be either the same or different, and the
τ+τ− pair can be either resonant or non-resonant (though this resonance would be difficult
to reconstruct with taus).
19.1. Theoretical Motivation
• The PQ-limit of the NMSSM: h→ χ1χ2 (topology I, resonant)
As discussed in detail in §1.3.8 (see also [51–53]), X1,2 represent the lightest and next-
to-lightest neutralinos in this limit, and we can get decay chains similar to those that
lead to h→ bb+E/T (see §18.1). The second neutralino χ2, which will often be mostly
bino, decays into χ1s and/or χ1a. If s or a have a mass 2mτ < ms/a < 2mb, they
dominantly decay into τ+τ− via mixing with the MSSM Higgs doublets. In this case,
the τ+τ− pair is resonant.
• νSM: h→ νN (topology I, non-resonant)
Neutrino models can also give rise to this signature. For example, in the νSM, the
Higgs can decay into an active neutrino and a sterile neutrino via Yukawa interac-
tion [54]. The mass mixing between RH sterile neutrinos and LH active neutrinos
then make the RH neutrinos decay via N → τ+W−(∗) → τ+τ−vτ and its conjugate
(given Majorana N), or/and N → νZ(∗) → ντ+τ−. Here the τ+τ− are generally non-
resonant, though in some cases they could sit on the Z resonance. For more details,
see §1.3.3.
151
• Other models: h→ aa, ZDZD, φ1φ2 (topology II)
As explained in §18.1, it is possible to realize topology II as a possibly subdominant
mode in dark vector models (§1.3.5), in the PQ-NMSSM (§1.3.7) via a decaying to
singlinos and taus if it satisfies 2mτ < ma < 2mb, or in a more complicated hidden
sector (§1.3.10).
19.2. Existing Collider Studies
A preliminary analysis for the type-I topology is in progress, based on a benchmark
model inspired by the PQ-limit of the NMSSM, which is presented in Table XI [385]. Given
mh mχ2 mχ1 ms
125 GeV 80 GeV 10 GeV 8 GeV
TABLE XI: Mass parameters used for the h→ τ+τ− + E/T collider analysis.
the large mass hierarchy between χ2 and its decay products χ1 and s (here a scalar or
pseudoscalar), as well as the fact that ms/2mτ is only O(1), the τ+τ− pair produced in
this decay tends to be highly collimated, forming a “ditau-jet” (much like some of the cases
discussed in §6 and references therein). The study is focused on Higgs events from associated
production with a leptonic Z boson (Z → e+e−, µ+µ−, and τ+τ−), due to the very large
expected QCD backgrounds for other production modes. The distinguishing features of this
signal are therefore two leptons with their invariant mass falling in the Z mass window, one
ditau-jet, and a moderate amount of E/T . The dominant backgrounds in this analysis are
Z+jets, tt+jets, and diboson+jets. They can be greatly reduced by cutting on the number
of tracks in the ditau-jet candidate (QCD jets have more tracks than ditaus) and requiring
the reconstructed h to be back-to-back with the Z. This preliminary analysis suggests that
extracting the h → X1X2 → 2τ + E/T signal is extremely challenging at the 14 TeV LHC,
although more study is in progress [385].
152
19.3. Existing Experimental Searches and Limits
Though these decays are motivated in several theoretical contexts, there are no dedicated
experimental searches yet, and the allowed parameter space is still mostly open. The main
constraints could come from h → τ+τ− searches [386, 387], h → WW ∗ searches [374, 388],
and the τ τ search by ATLAS [389]. However, in all of these analyses the selection cuts are
too aggressive to pick up the exotic Higgs decay efficiently. Some LHC searches might partly
pick up some special corners, though we will not attempt to delineate these regions here.
Dedicated searches are clearly needed, although, as mentioned above, very challenging.
20. CONCLUSIONS & OUTLOOK
We now summarize our results from various perspectives. Our main goals are to help
experimentalists choose which analyses to undertake, and to guide both theorists and ex-
perimentalists in understanding which feasibility studies would be well-motivated but have
not been done.
In §1.3, we considered various theories in which non-SM Higgs decays arise. Some of
these are simplified models, others more fully established theoretical structures, such as the
NMSSM. Within any one of these models, certain classes of decays tend to occur with definite
relative probabilities. If we are in such a model, we may ask: which of the various decay
modes offers the best sensitivity to the presence of the exotic decays? More precisely, given
the limits on σσSM·Br(h→ Fi) that can be obtained for the various exotic final states Fi, which
search gives us the strongest limit on σσSM·Br(h→ non-SM decays) = σ
σSM·∑
i Br(h→ Fi)?
For instance, as we will see in a moment, the case of h → ZDZD, where ZD is a spin-
one particle decaying to fermion pairs, leads to many final states, ranging from jjjj to
bb`+`− to `+`−`+`−. Not surprisingly, although `+`−`+`− only appears in about 10%
of h → ZDZD decays, searches for it are so sensitive that it provides the best limit in
σσSM
· Br(h → ZDZD). As another example, if h → aa, a a pseudoscalar decaying to
τ+τ−, µ+µ−, the decay τ+τ−µ+µ− provides the greatest sensitivity; a decay to four muons
is too rare.
We now proceed to organize our results along these lines. Initially we will limit ourselves
153
to cases without very low-mass particles that result in highly collimated pairs (or more) of
jets, leptons, or photons. The collimated cases will be addressed separately.
At the end of this section we provide a final summary of our findings.
20.1. How to interpret the tables
Below we organize our results into tables to allow for certain comparisons to be made
easily. These tables are presented to guide the reader, but necessarily suppress many essential
details, all of which are to be found in the main sections of our text. It is important
not to over-interpret the numbers presented in the tables; the interested reader
who is considering what searches or studies should be undertaken must rely on the longer
descriptions in the main text in order to obtain the full picture.
We consider a number of different “simplified model” scenarios below. For each one,
we consider different final states Fi to which the Higgs may decay. In the main text, we
have obtained information from several different types of sources: from existing theoretical
studies of a search for h→ Fi in the literature; from our own studies of this decay mode; from
existing experimental searches for h → Fi; and from existing searches for other processes
that we reinterpret as limits on h → Fi. Whichever of these gives the best current or
potential limit is listed in the tables; we indicate with a superscript whether the limit is
current or potential and whether it arises from a theory study or from published LHC data.
If no limit is known to us, we indicate it is “unknown” with the symbol “?”.
Importantly, the numbers presented in the tables are merely representative.
The limits that can be obtained from any search depend on the masses of new particles
to which the Higgs is decaying, and so in general they cover a range, sometimes a very
wide one. Because our goal is to point out where searches may be worth performing, the
tables present values at or near the optimistic end of the range. For example, if we show
potential sensitivity at the 1% level, this means that there is a significant range of masses in
which such a branching fraction would be experimentally accessible, though in other ranges
sensitivity might be much less. Conversely our numbers are in many cases conservative,
because they are often from theoretical studies that may not use optimal methods, or from
reinterpreting experimental searches that were optimized for something other than Higgs
decays. The reader is urged to look at the relevant sections in the main text to properly
154
appreciate these subtleties.
20.2. Final States Without E/T
20.2.1. h→ aa→ fermions
In the simplified model of the SM coupled to a real or complex SM-singlet scalar (§1.3.1),
in certain regimes of the two Higgs doublet model with an extra singlet (§1.3.2), and in
regimes of the NMSSM (§1.3.7), Little Higgs models (§1.3.9), and Hidden Valley models
(§1.3.10), one often finds the phenomenon of a Higgs decaying to two particles that in turn
decay to SM fermions with couplings weighted by mass (though sometimes separately for
up-type quarks, down-type quarks, and leptons). We write this as h→ aa for short.
We consider this situation in Table XII. For each decay mode Fi that arises in this context,
we list (second column) the best potential sensitivity to the particular mode, obtained either
from existing papers in the literature, or from our own studies, or from a reinterpretation
of an existing ATLAS or CMS search for some other phenomenon. In later tables, we will
also see current limits from ATLAS and CMS searches for the mode h → Fi, where those
exist. Where possible, we give estimates both for the existing Run I data (LHC7+8) and for
a certain amount of Run II data (LHC14), taken to be 100 fb−1 except where indicated by
an asterisk. In the third column, we indicate by G, V,W,Z whether the best known limit is
obtained through gg → h, Vector Boson Fusion (VBF or qq → qqh), Wh or Zh production.
We then try to put these results in a model-dependent but broad perspective. The
relative branching fractions, i.e. the rates of particular final states relative to the total rate
for all non-SM modes, are shown for two fiducial classes of models: one (fourth column)
where a decays to both quarks and leptons with relative branching fractions representative
of NMSSM-type models, and a second (sixth column) where quark decays are suppressed
either by couplings (vanishing aqq couplings) or by kinematics (ma < 2mb). (In the latter
case, our numbers are approximate because we ignore a→ cc, etc.) Then, by dividing these
relative branching fractions by the potential (or current) limit (second column), we obtain
the sensitivity that this search provides for Br(h→ aa), for the two fiducial models (fifth and
seventh columns.) We emphasize that some searches could be more constraining
for other models (e.g. for other Types of 2HDM+S), as we describe below.
155
Pro
ject
ed/C
urr
ent
qu
arks
allo
wed
qu
arks
sup
pre
ssed
Com
men
ts
Dec
ay2σ
Lim
itP
rod
uc-
Lim
iton
Lim
iton
Mod
eon
Br(Fi)
tion
Br(Fi)
Br(
non
-SM
)σσ
SM·B
r(n
on-S
M)
Br(Fi)
Br(
non
-SM
)σσ
SM·B
r(n
on-S
M)
Fi
7+8
[14]
TeV
Mod
e7+
8[1
4]T
eV7+
8[1
4]T
eV
bbbb
0.7
W0.
80.
90
–R
ecas
tof
exp
t.re
sult
[274
],§3
[0.2
][
0.2
][
–]
Th
eory
stu
dy
[191
,26
5],§3
bbττ
>1
V0.
1>
10
–
[0.1
5]
[1
][
–]
Th
eory
stu
dy
[276
],§4
bbµµ
(2−
7)·1
0−4
G3·1
0−4
0.5−
10
–O
ur
stu
dy,§5
[(0.6−
2)·1
0−4
][
0.2−
0.8
][
–]
Ou
rst
ud
y,§5
ττττ
0.2−
0.4
G0.
005
40−
801
0.2−
0.4
Rec
ast
ofex
pt.
resu
lt[2
96,
298]
,§6
[?
][
?]
[?
]
ττµµ
(3−
7)·1
0−4
G3·1
0−5
10−
200.
007
0.0
4−
0.1
Ou
rst
ud
y,§6
[?
][
?]
[?
]
µµµµ
1·1
0−4
G1·1
0−7
1000
1·1
0−5
10R
ecas
tof
exp
t.re
sult
[176
,33
9],§1
1
[?
][
?]
[?
]
TA
BL
EX
II:
Est
imate
sfo
rcu
rren
tor
pro
ject
edli
mit
son
vari
ous
pro
cess
esinh→aa,
ifa
cou
pli
ngs
are
pro
por
tion
alto
mas
ses,
and
eith
er
a→
qu
ark
sis
all
owed
as
inan
NM
SS
M-t
yp
em
od
el(c
ente
rco
lum
ns)
ora→
qu
arks
issu
pp
ress
edre
lati
vetoa→
lep
ton
s(r
ight
colu
mn
s).
Ifn
ore
leva
nt
esti
mat
eis
kn
own
,w
ein
dic
ate
this
wit
ha
“?”.
Th
eso
urc
eof
each
esti
mat
eis
list
edin
the
“Com
men
ts”
colu
mn
.P
rod
uct
ion
mod
es:G
forgg→
h,V
for
vec
tor
boso
nfu
sion
,W,Z
forWh
andZh
.F
or14
TeV
,es
tim
ates
requ
ire
100
fb−
1.
See§2
0.1
for
add
itio
nal
info
rmati
on
and
cau
tion
ary
rem
arks.
156
With a → qq allowed and a → bb dominant, it is notable that h → 4b and h → bbµµ
are both potentially promising in Run II. Furthermore, for this scenario bbµµ is the only
channel that may set marginally relevant limits with Run I data. The bbττ mode suffers
by comparison from the absence of a resonance and large tt backgrounds, and analysis
improvements will be necessary if it is to be useful.
In the absence of a → quarks, or for ma < 10 GeV, the search for h → τ+τ−µ+µ−
is more sensitive than that for h → τ+τ−τ+τ−, but sufficiently close that both should be
investigated further. It is worth considering both modes in searches within Run I data.
In some models the ratio of a → bb to a → ττ can change continuously as a function of
parameters. Since the achievable limits on Br(h → 2a → 2b2µ) and Br(h → 2a → 2τ2µ)
are very similar, the former will set a better limit on overall exotic branching fraction if
Br(a → 2b) & Br(a → 2τ), and vice versa. At least one of these two channels should
approach a sensitivity of Br(h→ aa) ∼ 0.1. Investigating both is therefore vital to achieve
‘full coverage’ of this scenario.
Our suggestion is that the searches for bbµ+µ− and τ+τ−µ+µ−, assuming a µ+µ− res-
onance at the a mass, should be undertaken, even with Run I data. We note that both
triggering and analysis are far easier for bbµ+µ− and τ+τ−µ+µ− than for other modes, due
to the higher-pT muons and the narrow peak in the di-muon mass. We also emphasize that
these searches should be carried out with minimal prejudice as to the range of ma. For
τ+τ−µ+µ−, the common assumption ma < 2mb is unnecessary; as we have noted in §1.3.2,
there are many models in which a→ bb is suppressed not by kinematics but by coupling con-
stants. Meanwhile, for bbµ+µ−, the assumption that both fermion-antifermion pairs come
from the same type of particle implies that mµµ = ma > 2mb, but the decay h → aa′ can
occur in some non-minimal models, in which case ma′ = mµµ < 2mb < ma may occur,
possibly with an increased rate.
20.2.2. h→ aa→ SM gauge bosons
Next we turn to a case where the a does not couple strongly to fermions, and instead
decays mainly to gluon pairs and photon pairs through loops of heavy particles. Such
couplings are commonly proportional to gauge couplings squared (i.e. to αi), in which case
Br(a → γγ) ∼ 0.004 × Br(a → gg) for a degenerate SU(5) multiplet of fermions coupling
157
equally to a (see §8). But if the masses M of the heavy colored particles in the loops
are larger than the masses m of the colorless ones, the rate for photon production may be
enhanced by at least a factor of (M/m)2.
Estimated limits for this case are shown in Table XIII. If the heavy particles are degenerate
and in complete SU(5) multiplets, then the center columns show that only the four-jet search
has any reach, with phenomenologically relevant sensitivity possible for ma . 5 GeV with
300 fb−1 of data. If the branching fraction a→ γγ is enhanced by a factor of 10, as would
happen if the colored particles appearing in the loop graph were about 3 times heavier than
the colorless particles, then the situation is given in the right columns. In this case, the
four-photon search is clearly superior.
We should of course note that it is possible to have a particle that dominantly decays to
γγ. This could occur for a pseudoscalar a if it couples to the visible sector only through
loops of heavy colorless charged particles. In this case there would be only 4γ decays and
no 4j or 2j2γ decays.
With these considerations in mind, it would seem four-jet, four-photon, and mixed
searches are all well-motivated in Run II. However, for Run I data, a four-jet search is
hopeless, while a four-photon search is already sensitive to models where a has enhanced
decays to photons. We therefore suggest a search for h → 4γ even in the existing Run I
data. We also suggest that triggers for multiple photons be set so as to retain this signal in
Run II.
20.2.3. h→ ZDZD, ZZD, Za
Now we consider the possibility that the Higgs decays either to two dark vector bosons
ZD or to one ZD and one SM Z. This can occur in dark vector scenarios (§1.3.5) and
more general hidden valleys (§1.3.10). The main difference compared to h → aa is that
ZD branching ratios are ordered by SM gauge charge instead of mass, which leads to large
leptonic branching fractions.
The h→ ZZD search can also set limits on the h→ Za scenario, where a is a pseudoscalar
which decays to fermions in proportion to their masses. If decays to bb are suppressed or
forbidden the limits can already be appreciable.
A useful fiducial model is to take ZD to couple to SM fermions proportional to their
158
Pro
ject
ed/C
urr
ent
Br(a→γγ
)≈
0.0
04B
r(a→γγ
)≈
0.0
4C
omm
ents
Dec
ay2σ
Lim
itP
rod
uc-
Lim
iton
Lim
iton
Mod
eon
Br(Fi)
tion
Br(Fi)
Br(
non
-SM
)σσ
SM·B
r(n
on-S
M)
Br(Fi)
Br(
non
-SM
)σσ
SM·B
r(n
on-S
M)
Fi
7+8
[14]
TeV
Mod
e7+
8[1
4]T
eV7+
8[1
4]T
eV
jjjj
>1
W0.
99>
10.
92>
1
[0.1∗
][
0.1∗
][
0.1∗
]T
heo
ryst
ud
y[2
18,
267]
,§7
γγjj
0.0
4W
0.00
85
0.08
0.5
[0.0
1∗]
[1∗
][
0.1∗
]T
heo
ryst
ud
y[3
10],§8
γγγγ
2·1
0−4
G1·1
0−5
200.
001
0.2
Ou
rst
ud
y,§9
[3·1
0−5∗
][
1∗
][
0.0
3∗]
Th
eory
stu
dy
[309
],§9
TA
BL
EX
III:
As
inT
ab
leX
II,
esti
mat
esfo
rva
riou
sp
roce
sses
inh→
aa
ifa
dec
ays
only
toS
Mga
uge
bos
ons
thro
ugh
loop
s.T
he
centr
al
colu
mn
ssh
owth
eca
sew
her
eth
eco
up
lin
gs
are
gen
erat
edby
init
iall
yd
egen
erat
eSU
(5)
mu
ltip
lets
;th
eri
ght
colu
mn
ssh
owth
eca
sew
her
e
thea→γγ
rate
isen
han
ced
by
afa
ctor
of10
.A
nast
eris
kden
ote
sth
at
all
14
TeV
esti
mate
ssh
ow
nre
quir
e300
fb−
1of
data
.
159
Projected/Current
Decay 2σ Limit Produc- Limit on Comments
Mode on Br(Fi) tion Br(Fi)Br(non-SM)
σσSM· Br(non-SM)
Fi 7+8 [14] TeV Mode 7+8 [14] TeV
jjjj> 1
W 0.25> 1
[ 0.1∗ ] [ 0.4∗ ] Theory study [218, 267], §7
````4 · 10−5
G 0.094 · 10−4 Recast of expt. result [176, 339], §11
[ ? ] [ ? ]
jjµµ0.002− 0.008
G 0.150.01− 0.06 Our study, §5
[ (5− 20) · 10−4 ] [ 0.003− 0.01 ] Our study, §5
bbµµ(2− 7) · 10−4
G 0.0150.01− 0.05 Our study, §5
[ (0.6− 2) · 10−4 ] [ 0.003− 0.01 ] Our study, §5
TABLE XIV: As in Table XII, estimates for various processes in h → ZDZD if mZD > 2mb and
couplings are proportional to electric charges. ` = e, µ and all numbers represent the sum of
processes involving e and µ; j represents all jets except b quarks. An asterisk indicates that 300
fb−1 was assumed; otherwise all estimates for 14 TeV assume 100 fb−1.
electric charge. This is the case if decays occur via kinetic γ−ZD mixing, and ifmZD � mZ so
that photon-Z mixing is unimportant (see Fig. 13 in §1.3.5), but also gives the qualitatively
correct picture for more general dark vector scenarios.
We first treat the h → ZDZD decay, see Table XIV. Not surprisingly, the search for
h→ (`+`−)(`+`−), which allows full reconstruction at high resolution, is the most powerful.
The published data on four-lepton events used in the Higgs search and in Z(∗)Z(∗) studies
puts tremendous constraints on this decay, already, according to our reinterpretation of the
published data, reaching Br(h → ZDZD) < 4 × 10−4. It is important to improve on the
constraints we found on this well-motivated model; specifically, our reinterpretation did not
allow for an optimal constraint, since it does not make full use of the three available mass
resonances.
Limits on Br(h→ ZDZD) from dilepton plus jets searches are probably in the few times
10−2 range, see §5. As the table indicates, our studies suggest that jjµ+µ− and bbµ+µ− would
160
have comparable sensitivity, and this might also be true for electron final states, though
triggering and reconstruction efficiencies will be lower than for muons in many cases. But
even combining all of these together, it appears that dilepton plus jets final states would only
be competitive in models where the branching fractions for leptons is significantly reduced
compared to the case we consider in Table XIV.
The constraints on h → ZZD and Za are shown in Table XV. The h → Z∗Z search
sets powerful constraints. In the case of ZZD, they are still one order of magnitude weaker
than indirect constraints from electroweak precision measurements for mZD & 10 GeV (see
Fig. 12). (For mZD . 10 GeV, the constraints are even stronger.) A more optimized search
with sufficient luminosity at the 14 TeV LHC will yield competitive or even eventually
superior limits for mZD & 10 GeV. The bounds on h→ Za from four lepton final state are
rather weak due to Yukawa suppression. The decay h→ Za is an example of an asymmetric
h → 2 → 4 decay, and other search channels such as h → Za → (`+`−)(bb) may provide
better sensitivity in the long run.
We therefore find that searches for four-lepton final states in h→ (`+`−)(`+`−) via non-
SM channels are extremely well-motivated in Run I. As we have noted earlier, the available
data as published in the search for the SM h→ ZZ∗ mode are not ideal for the ZDZD or ZZD
searches, since neither the selection cuts nor the analysis approach are appropriate to the
signal, with some events unnecessarily discarded and with leptons often systematically mis-
assigned. The analysis for ZZD in particular (but also ZDZD in general) should preferably
also extend to very low ZD mass ranges, where isolation cuts and quarkonium backgrounds
are an issue.
Triggering is not a problem for these final states because the leptons have relatively high
pT . Multi-lepton triggers where two or three leptons are soft may contribute to sensitivity,
a point that deserves further exploration.
20.3. Final States with E/T
In the h→ 2→ 4 final states we discussed above, only one unknown particle need appear,
and its decays are often controlled by a single type of coupling. By contrast, final states with
E/T can arise from multiple decay topologies (see Fig. 2), and the type of search required
may depend on whether the energy carried by invisible particles is large (in the Higgs rest
161
Pro
ject
ed/C
urr
ent
Dec
ay2σ
Lim
itP
rod
uc-
Lim
iton
Com
men
ts
Mod
eon
Br(Fi)
tion
Br(Fi)
Br(
non
-SM
)σσ
SM·B
r(n
on-S
M)
Fi
7+
8[1
4]T
eVM
od
e7+
8[1
4]T
eV
ZZD→````
4·1
0−5
G0.
020.
002
Rec
ast
ofex
pt.
resu
lt[1
76,
177]
,§1
0
[?
][
?]
Za→``µµ
4·1
0−5
G2·1
0−5
2R
ecas
tof
exp
t.re
sult
[176
,17
7],§1
0
Br(a→bb
)∼
0.9
[?
][
?]
Za→``µµ
4·1
0−5
G2·1
0−4
0.2
Rec
ast
ofex
pt.
resu
lt[1
76,
177]
,§1
0
Br(a→bb
)=
0[
?]
[?
]
TA
BL
EX
V:A
sin
Tab
leX
II,es
tim
ate
sfo
ral
l-le
pto
nic
pro
cess
esinh→ZZD
andh→Za→````
;ot
her
pro
cess
esw
ere
not
stu
die
d.
ForZD
we
assu
me
cou
pli
ngs
are
pro
port
ion
alto
elec
tric
char
ges;
fora
we
assu
me
all
cou
pli
ngs
are
pro
por
tion
alto
mas
ses,
and
eith
erth
ata→bb
isd
omin
ant
or
hig
hly
sup
pre
ssed
(as
ince
rtai
nT
yp
eII
I2H
DM
+S
mod
els
des
crib
edin§1
.3.2
).H
ere`
=e,µ
and
all
nu
mb
ers
rep
rese
nt
the
sum
ofp
roce
sses
invo
lvin
ge
an
dµ
.A
nast
eris
kin
dic
ates
that
300
fb−
1w
asas
sum
ed;
other
wis
eal
les
tim
ates
for
14T
eVas
sum
e10
0fb−
1.
162
frame) relative to mh.
20.3.1. Larger E/T , without resonances
First we consider cases where the E/T in the h rest frame is a significant fraction of its mass,
and the invariant mass of the visible objects in the Higgs decay lies well below 125 GeV and
may be highly variable. In general, there may be no resonances among the visible particles
in the non-SM Higgs decay modes. Fermion-antifermion pairs may be produced in 3-body
decays such as ψ → ffψ′; in this case there will be kinematic endpoints, but statistics may
be too small to use them. Branching fractions are very model-dependent, but tend to be
similar either to the heavy-flavor-weighted or the flavor-democratic cases associated with
(pseudo)scalars a or vectors ZD discussed above. Tables XVI and XVII show that cases
with leptons are promising, but with bb or ττ the situation is difficult even if, as in the
studies we refer to in the main text, the 2b and 2τ are assumed to be on-resonance. More
study of the difficult cases is warranted.
In particular, for bbE/T , ττE/T , and even µµE/T where the muons are too soft to pass di-
muon trigger thresholds, it may become important to consider VBF production. Triggering
in this case might require combining a VBF dijet requirement, a E/T requirement, and a
requirement of b, τ , or µ candidates. This requires further investigation.
Photons, by contrast, may be produced singly, as in ψ → γψ′, and thus non-resonant
γ + E/T and γγ + E/T final states are possible. We show results in Table XVIII. There is
no preferred pattern of branching fractions here; the decay ψ → γψ′ may have a branching
fraction of 100%, or may be diluted by other final states, such as ψ → Z∗ψ′ or ψ → ZDψ′.
Existing searches involving γ + E/T have a high HT cut and are very inefficient for a Higgs
signal of this type; see §12. Because we do not know the size of fake E/T backgrounds in γ
+ jet events at low photon-pT and especially low E/T , we cannot determine whether a single
photon search is well-justified; experimental studies would be required on this point. We
note that data from a parked data trigger for γ + E/T , available at least for CMS [33], may
allow for an interesting search.
In any case, a γγE/T search in Run I data is certainly justified. It is quite reasonable
theoretically to have Br(h → χ2χ2) ∼ 0.1 and Br(χ2 → γχ1) = 1, and (see Fig. 32) a
non-optimized GMSB search already reaches the level of Br(h→ γγ+E/T ) ∼ 0.05. A search
163
Pro
ject
ed/C
urr
ent
qu
arks
allo
wed
qu
arks
sup
pre
ssed
Dec
ay2σ
Lim
itP
rod
uc-
Lim
iton
Lim
iton
Com
men
ts
Mod
eon
Br(Fi)
tion
Br(Fi)
Br(
non
-SM
)σσ
SM·B
r(n
on-S
M)
Br(Fi)
Br(
non
-SM
)σσ
SM·B
r(n
on-S
M)
Fi
7+8
[14]
TeV
Mod
e7+
8[1
4]T
eV7+
8[1
4]T
eV
(bb)E/T
>1
Z0.
9>
10
–O
ur
stu
dy,§1
8
[0.2∗
][
0.2∗
][
–]
Th
eory
stu
dy
[52,
53],§1
.3.8
(ττ)E/T
>1
Z0.
1>
11
>1
Ou
rst
ud
y,§1
9
[>
1∗]
[>
1∗]
[>
1∗
]T
heo
ryst
ud
y[5
2,53
],§1
.3.8
µµE/T
0.07
G0.
003
400.
034
Rec
ast
ofex
pt.
resu
lt[3
74,
375]
,§1
5
[?
][
?]
[?
]
TA
BL
EX
VI:
As
inT
ab
leX
II,
esti
mat
esfo
rva
riou
sp
roce
ssesh→ψψ′ ,
wh
ereψ′is
invis
ible
andψ→ψ′ +ff
via
anin
term
edia
tea
cou
pli
ng
tofe
rmio
ns
pro
por
tion
al
toth
eir
mas
ses.
Inth
etw
oca
ses
show
n,
eith
erB
r(a→
bb)
dom
inat
es(c
ente
rco
lum
ns)
orqu
arks
are
sup
pre
ssed
rela
tive
tole
pto
ns
(rig
ht
colu
mn
s).
Th
eli
mit
sfo
rbb
andττ
assu
me
anin
term
edia
tere
son
ance
(in
dic
ated
wit
hp
aren
thes
es),
wh
ile
theµµ
lim
its
do
not
ass
um
ea
reso
nan
cean
dare
art
ifici
ally
wea
k.
An
ast
eris
kin
dic
ate
sth
at
all
14
TeV
esti
mate
ssh
ow
nre
quir
e300
fb−
1of
data
.
164
more optimized for a Higgs signal should do considerably better.
20.3.2. Larger E/T , with resonances
If the objects in the final states are produced in resonances, and the resonances in question
are from scalar or vector particles, then as in the previous section there are preferred scenarios
for their branching fractions. In these cases, the limits will obviously be stronger than in the
non-resonant cases, especially for photons and leptons. On the other hand, the numbers we
have presented in this document are obtained by reinterpreting ATLAS and CMS searches
which do not seek resonances, and are therefore unnecessarily pessimistic.
For instance, in a decay h → ψψ′ where ψ → aψ′, ψ′ is invisible, and a decays to gluon
and photon pairs, we will potentially have h→ jj + E/T and h→ γγ + E/T , see Table XIX.
The dijet signal has not been studied, and given the difficulty of the search for h → bb
+ E/T it is not likely to be useful. We therefore show only the 2γ + E/T case. Note these
numbers are obtained from searches that do not require a di-photon resonance, so the true
sensitivity may be significantly higher in a resonance search. Even so there may only be
sensitivity in this channel at present with some enhancement of Br(a→ γγ), but since this
is a reasonable possibility, we view a dedicated search in Run I data as well-motivated. Even
though we have not done so in this document, one could also investigate h→ ψψ → 4γ+E/T
via two intermediate pseudoscalars. Aside from a direct search for the final state, perhaps
a ≥ 3-photon search, where one looks for a resonance in nearby photon pairs, is warranted.
Meanwhile, in a decay h→ ψψ′ where ψ → aψ′, ψ′ is invisible, and a decays to fermions
with couplings proportional to masses, we will potentially have h→ bb + E/T , jj + E/T , τ+τ−
+ E/T , µ+µ− + E/T final states. We already showed results for this case in Table XVI. Only
the µ+µ− search will be sensitive in the next few years, and the rate for this final state may
be quite low if ma � 2mτ , but importantly the search may be quite a bit more sensitive than
shown when one requires a resonance. Admittedly we are quoting numbers for optimistic
scenarios; as the E/T increases and the pT of the visible objects decreases, efficiencies and
sensitivities may drop rapidly. Also shown are the numbers if the decay of the a to bb is
suppressed by kinematics or by coupling constants. Even in this case the decay to µ+µ−
appears too small, but it important to note that the numbers for µ+µ− + E/T are obtained
assuming no resonances (see §14). Therefore, in this case a search in the 7+8 TeV data is
165
Pro
ject
ed/C
urr
ent
h→ψψ′→ff
+E/T
h→ψψ→f 1f 1
+f 2f 2
+E/T
Dec
ay2σ
Lim
itP
rod
uc-
Lim
iton
Lim
iton
Com
men
ts
Mod
eon
Br(Fi)
tion
Br(Fi)
Br(
non
-SM
)σσ
SM·B
r(n
on-S
M)
Br(Fi)
Br(
non
-SM
)σσ
SM·B
r(n
on-S
M)
Fi
7+
8[1
4]T
eVM
od
e7+
8[1
4]T
eV7+
8[1
4]T
eV
(bb)E/T
>1
Z0.
05>
10.
1>
1O
ur
stu
dy,§1
8
[0.2∗
][
4∗
][
2∗
]T
heo
ryst
ud
y[5
1],§1
.3.1
0
(ττ)E/T
>1
Z0.
15>
10.
28>
1O
ur
stu
dy,§1
9
[>
1∗
][>
1∗
][>
1∗ ]
]T
heo
ryst
ud
y[5
1],§1
.3.1
0
``E/T
0.0
7G
0.30
0.2
0.51
0.1
Rec
ast
ofex
pt.
resu
lt[3
74,
375]
,§1
5
[?
][
?]
[?
]
````E/T
5·1
0−4
G,V
––
0.09
0.00
5R
ecas
tof
exp
t.re
sult
[367
],§1
4
[?
][
–]
[?
]
TA
BL
EX
VII
:A
sin
Tab
leX
II,
esti
mate
sfo
rva
riou
sp
roce
ssesh→ψψ′
(mid
dle
colu
mn
)an
dh→ψψ
(rig
ht
colu
mn
),w
her
eψ′
isin
vis
ible
andψ→ψ′ +ff
via
anin
term
edia
te(p
ossi
bly
off-s
hel
l)ve
ctor
bos
on,w
hic
hco
up
les
tofe
rmio
ns
pro
por
tion
ally
toel
ectr
icch
arge
s.T
he
lim
its
forbb
an
dττ
ass
um
ean
inte
rmed
iate
reso
nan
ce(i
nd
icat
edw
ith
par
enth
eses
),w
hil
eth
e2`,4`
lim
its
do
not
,m
akin
gth
eli
mit
sar
tifi
cial
ly
wea
k.
Forh→ψψ
(rig
ht-
most
colu
mn
s),
ther
ear
efo
ur
ferm
ion
sin
the
final
stat
e;w
eas
sum
eh
ere
that
the
lim
its
obta
ined
forff
+E/T
are
not
mu
chch
an
ged
by
the
pre
sen
ceof
the
two
add
itio
nal
ferm
ion
s.A
nast
eris
kden
ote
sth
at
all
14
TeV
esti
mate
ssh
ow
nre
quir
e300
fb−
1
of
data
.
166
Decay Projected/Current 2σ Limit Production Comments
Mode Limit on Br(Fi) Mode
Fi 7+8 [14] TeV
γ E/T> 1
GRecast of expt. result [357], §12
?
γγ E/T0.04
GRecast of expt. result [357], §13
?
TABLE XVIII: As in Table XII, estimates for h→ ψψ or ψψ′, where ψ → ψ′+γ and ψ′ is invisible.
Note the limits we have obtained do not require a γγ resonance.
probably merited.
Note that if mh − 2mψ is small, the leptons will have low pT . Then the search strategy
we refer to in Table XVI, which relies on gg → h, will not work, because the leptons will
lie below di-lepton trigger thresholds. This is unfortunate, because despite their low pT the
leptons may form a resonance that makes off-line backgrounds small. So as not to lose the
possibility of discovery, it may be essential to trigger on such events produced via VBF.
where the trigger combines the jets from VBF with E/T and the soft leptons.
Note that if instead of h → a + E/T the decay is to h → aa + E/T , via h → ψψ and
ψ → aψ′, the situation is quite similar. Aside from µ+µ− + E/T inclusive, which has twice as
large a branching fraction as in Table XVI, no other searches may be sensitive in the near
term. However, some advantage can be obtained from τ+τ−µ+µ−E/T events, via multi-lepton
searches.
Next we turn to the case where a is replaced by ZD. We already showed both the cases
where h → ZD + E/T and h → ZDZD + E/T in Table XVII. Again we emphasize that no
resonances are assumed in the leptonic searches, so true sensitivities should be better than
shown. Clearly searches in the dilepton and four-lepton mode are well-motivated by these
models.
167
Pro
ject
ed/C
urr
ent
Br(a→γγ
)≈
0.0
04B
r(a→γγ
)≈
0.04
Dec
ay2σ
Lim
itP
rod
uc-
Lim
iton
Lim
iton
Com
men
ts
Mod
eon
Br(Fi)
tion
Br(Fi)
Br(
non
-SM
)σσ
SM·B
r(n
on-S
M)
Br(Fi)
Br(
non
-SM
)σσ
SM·B
r(n
on-S
M)
Fi
7+8
[14]
TeV
Mod
e7+
8[1
4]T
eV7+
8[1
4]T
eV
γγE/T
0.04
G0.
004
100.
041
Rec
ast
ofex
pt.
resu
lt[3
57],§1
3
[?
][
?]
[?
]
TA
BL
EX
IX:
As
inT
ab
leX
II,
esti
mat
esfo
rh→
a+E/T
wit
ha→
γγ
ifa
cou
pli
ngs
togl
uon
san
dp
hot
ons
are
pro
por
tion
alto
gau
ge
cou
pli
ngs
(cen
ter
colu
mn
s),
orw
ith
Br(a→
γγ
)en
chan
ced
by
afa
ctor
of10
(rig
ht
colu
mn
s).
Not
eth
eli
mit
sw
eh
ave
obta
ined
do
not
requ
ire
aγγ
reso
nan
ce.
168
20.3.3. Small E/T
If the amount of E/T is always small, modes with E/T may be probed in searches that
assume no E/T , as long as kinematic requirements are loosened appropriately. These include
both searches for SM decay modes and for non-SM h→ 2→ 4 modes discussed above.
Small E/T arises naturally when the invisible particles are emitted in two-body decays
that constrain their pT to be small, for instance in h → aa′ where a′ is invisible and mh ∼
ma � mh −ma ∼ ma′ . It is common for the other particle in the two-body decay to then
produce an observable resonance; in the previous example we might have a→ bb resonantly.
In addition to this h→ 2→ 3 decay, similar features may arise in a h→ 2→ 4→ 6 decay,
such as h→ ψψ and ψ → Y ψ′, where mψ′ < mψ −mY � mh and Y decays visibly; in this
case there are two Y resonances, plus small E/T . Another possibility is for a h→ 2→ 3→ 4
decay, for instance if h→ ψψ′, ψ → Y ψ′, if mY ∼ mψ ∼ mh.
For an h→ 2→ 3 (or h→ 2→ 3→ 4) decay with one (or two) low-pT invisible particles,
SM searches are often sensitive, as long as cuts do not exclude resonances below 125 GeV.
For example, the decay h → ψ′ψ → ψ′ψ′Y → ψ′ψ′(ff), where f is a SM fermion, closely
resembles the decay h → ff , except that the mass of the ff lies at mY , slightly below mh.
The same applies for a decay to photons.
For a h → 2 → 4 → 6 decay, with two low-pT invisible particles, the final state of the
Higgs resembles an h → 2 → 4 decay, such as we have already discussed extensively in the
preceding subsection. The only new requirement is to allow for the total invariant mass of
the two Y resonances to lie between 2mY and mh.
There are other cases to consider, such as h→ ZZD, ZD → a1s1 where a1 decays outside
the detector and s1 → µ+µ−. The general lesson is the same, however: if the E/T is small and
the final states are resonant, as is commonly the case, the only necessary change between
standard and exotic searches is to relax the requirement, as appropriate, that the invariant
mass of the visible objects is 125 GeV. This loosening of cuts is only relevant in channels
where the invariant mass reconstruction has excellent resolution, i.e. final states containing
electrons, muons, or photons.
We therefore find that:
• the four-lepton and four-photon searches mentioned in the previous section, aimed
at h → 2 → 4 decays, should also be performed so that limits can be obtained on
169
scenarios where the invariant mass of the observed objects lies somewhat below mh,
whether or not the leptons or photons form resonances in pairs.
• it is useful to study the data from the SM diphoton search for resonances below
125 GeV and for continua that extend from a lower mass limit up to mh.
We emphasize that in these cases, a premature invariant-mass requirement in event pre-
selection could eliminate a signal. (This same concern applies to these searches for another
reason: the possibility of a second Higgs with a different mass, a low cross-section, and
unknown branching fractions to SM-like and non-SM-like decays.)
20.3.4. Summary
Summarizing the situation for final states with invisible non-SM particles, we suggest
searches already in Run I for γγ + E/T , `+`− + E/T , and `+`−`+`− + E/T , both with and
without requiring pair-wise resonances. Multi-photon searches may also be warranted, now
or in Run II. If possible, various possible simplified models generating these final states
should be considered for each search, including ones that have very different kinematics for
the observed particles and for the E/T . Experimental studies of the γ + E/T final state are
warranted. Study of the final states with pair-wise resonances is lacking and may be useful.
20.4. Collimated objects in pairs
Kinematics may force pairs or groups of visible particles to be produced with large pT
compared to their invariant mass, such that they emerge collimated. In such situations,
special search strategies are necessary, since the collimated particles must often be treated
as a single special object in order that they be distinguished from a single QCD jet, or be
viewed as a pair of objects with special isolation criteria, such that each does not ruin the
isolation of the other. We have briefly discussed a few cases, and summarize them below
and in Table XX. In contrast to other tables, we do not attempt to interpret the results in
terms of models, because for particles of mass� 5 GeV, branching fractions to specific final
states often vary rapidly as a function of mass.
In this document, collimated leptons are considered in §16 (one lepton jet) and §17 (two
lepton jets). We concentrate on simple lepton-jets, consisting of a single lepton-antilepton
170
pair that are collimated, yet isolated from other particles. Complex lepton-jets, which
may contain multiple lepton-antilepton pairs and possibly hadron pairs as well, are not
studied here. Simple lepton-jets may involve both muons and electrons (for a vector ZD),
muons almost always (for a scalar or pseudoscalar a with ma > 2mµ), or electrons only (for
ma < 2mµ) though we have not considered the latter case.
There have been no searches using more than 35 pb−1 of LHC data for final states with
a single lepton jet. However, the study conducted by [53] (see §16) indicates that exotic
branching fractions ∼ 10−2 can be probed if there is additional E/T from the Higgs decay.
Searches for two dilepton jets have been carried out at both the Tevatron and the LHC,
as shown in Table XX, but there has not been systematic coverage, and existing LHC
searches have in some cases been done with only a small fraction of the existing data set.
There are specifically searches for Higgs decays to two dimuon jets {µ+µ−}{µ+µ−} (here
curly brackets denote collimation) without reconstructing the h resonance, so we can use
these searches to constrain the cases with and without E/T . There have been searches for
lepton jets with > 2 muons but we do not consider them in our table. Meanwhile, although
there are searches for two electronic lepton-jets, the one search [225] for h → electron jets
looks for two {e+e−e+e−} jets, while the only search for two di-electron jets {e+e−}{e+e−}
[287] assumes a large supersymmetric production cross-section. We have not attempted to
reinterpret either search as a limit on h → two {e+e−}-jets, and so leave these cases blank
in our table. To our knowledge there are no searches for two lepton-jets of different types.
§6 considered collimated τ pairs in h→ {τ+τ−}{τ+τ−} decays, as well as {τ+τ−}{µ+µ−}.
We found that a search for the latter is more powerful, since the collimated muons have higher
pT than any daughters of τ decays and have a fixed invariant mass. Our study suggested
limits even at Run 1 in the (3−7)×10−4 range might be possible. This is much stronger than
the previous measurement from D0 [285], and would put limits on Br(h → aa), assuming
a → ττ, µµ with couplings weighted by mass, in the range of 5-10%. States such as bbττ
and bbµµ will not have collimated leptons or taus if the b pair and lepton pair come from
two particles of the same mass > 2mb; only in more complex models will this arise (though
for ma . 25 GeV, the 2b’s can merge into a single jet, see below). For this reason, along
with the fact that there are no strong experimental limits on these cases, we have not listed
them in our table.
A more complete search program is highly warranted in Run I data looking for simple
171
Pro
ject
ed/C
urr
ent
Dec
ay2σ
Lim
itP
rod
uc-
Com
men
ts
Mod
eon
Br(Fi)
tion
Fi
7+8
[14]
TeV
Mod
e
{µµ}{µµ}
1·1
0−5
(5·1
0−3)
[?]
GC
MS
[337
],2m
µ<ma<
2mτ
(CM
S[3
77]ma<
5G
eV)
{ee}{ee}
lim
itu
ncl
ear
[?]
W,G
rein
terp
reta
tion
of[2
25,
287]
nee
ded
{µµ}X
1[?
]G
CM
S,
[377
],2m
µ<ma<
5G
eV
{µµ}E/T
0.03
[?]
WT
heo
ryst
ud
y[5
2,53
],§1
.3.8
and
Ap
pen
dix
B;
our
stu
dy,§1
6
{µµ}{µµ}E/T
1·1
0−5
(5·1
0−3)
[?]
GC
MS
[337
],2m
µ<ma<
2mτ
(CM
S[3
77]ma<
5G
eV)
how
ever
,se
e§1
7fo
rim
por
tant
det
ails
{ee}{ee}E/T
lim
itu
ncl
ear
[?]
W,G
rein
terp
reta
tion
of[2
25,
287]
nee
ded
{ττ}{µµ}
(3−
7)·1
0−4
[?]
GT
his
wor
k,
see§6
.2
{γγ}{γγ}
0.01
[?]
GA
TL
AS
[322
],ma<
400
MeV
{γγ}E/T
?[?]
no
stu
die
s
{gg}{gg}
>1
[0.7
]W
boos
tedWh
[265
],ma<
30G
eV
{bb}{bb}
0.7
[0.2
]W
boos
tedWh
[265
],ma∼
15G
eV
TA
BL
EX
X:
Est
imat
esfo
rse
nsi
tivit
yof
cert
ain
sear
ches
for
coll
imat
edp
airs
ofob
ject
s;co
llim
atio
nis
den
oted
by
curl
yb
rack
ets.
See
Tab
le
XII
for
not
ati
on
and
text
for
more
det
ail
s.A
nas
teri
skin
dic
ates
that
300
fb−
1w
asas
sum
ed;
oth
erw
ise
all
esti
mat
esfo
r14
TeV
assu
me
100
fb−
1.
172
lepton-jets, both within Higgs searches and beyond. For reasons that we have outlined,
no mass restrictions should be placed on these searches, except those absolutely required
by kinematics. For instance, even if a model has a → µ+µ− as motivation, it should not
be restricted to ma < 2mτ or ma < 2mb, both because such a search has sensitivity to
a vector ZD, with substantial leptonic branching fractions at all masses, and because if a
couples weakly to b quarks then the bb threshold will have almost no effect on its branching
fractions. Similarly, models with a ZD vector boson may have electron-positron lepton-
jets with arbitrary invariant mass, so such a search should not be limited to extremely low
masses. The range between the obviously collimated region (m`` < 5 GeV) and the obviously
uncollimated one (m`` > 20 GeV) remains almost completely unexplored, and efforts to close
this gap would be well-motivated. Once the simple lepton-jets are fully covered, a program
to study more complex lepton-jets will also be a high priority.
Collimated photons can arise if a scalar or pseudoscalar with a substantial coupling to
photons has a low mass. A search for h→ {γγ}{γγ} where the photon pairs are very highly
collimated, loosely reconstructed as a single photon, has already been done. A search for
h → {γγ}{γγ} with less collimated photon pairs, recognizable as two separate but closely
spaced photons that are isolated from other particles, is also well-motivated. The ability to
identify just one such object with low backgrounds is critical for any search for h→ {γγ} +
E/T ; see §13. Whether these searches are well-motivated in Run I data needs further study.
For completeness, we include 4b and 4j final states in our table. These cases, which are
important if h→ aa and then a→ bb or a→ gg are dominant, are effectively collimated if
mjj,mbb < 20 GeV or so, since the jets will typically merge. Moreover, searches for these
modes almost certainly require a boosted h, so in the end there will potentially be further
merging.
20.5. For further study
We note a number of important possible decays that we have not considered in this work,
and that merit study. First, we did not study two-body decays such as h→ τµ or h→ Zγ,
but these have been studied extensively in the literature. More exotic decays that have
received varying degrees of attention include
• h → 2 → 6 e.g. decays of the Higgs to neutralinos that decay via R-parity violation
173
to three jets, etc.
• h to > 4 leptons, τs, bs; decays such as h → 6τ or 8b have been suggested in the
literature [262], see also §1.3.5, §1.3.10, but both theoretical and experimental study
has been limited, though CDF has looked for decays of the Higgs to many soft leptons
[226].
• h to complex lepton jets (i.e. with > 2 tracks), including both purely electronic,
purely muonic, purely leptonic with a mix of muons and electrons, and mixed lep-
tonic/hadronic jets (see for example [381]).
• Decays to one or more photonic jets (consisting of ≥ 2 collimated photons) need more
experimental study; theory studies include [311, 312, 320].
• h decaying to long-lived particles with decays in flight [31, 75, 76]. There have been
a number of searches for specific final states at particular decay lifetimes, but not a
coherent program that covers all cases.
This is certainly not the complete list; for example one should not forget h→ 3→ n, with
a 3-body decay h → ZDZ∗D or h → aa∗ (for mZD ,ma ≥ mh/2), though, with the exception
of all-leptonic modes, sensitivity to such decay modes needs further study. Also,
• Further studies in more difficult channels, such as bbττ , bbE/T , ττE/T , jjγγ, are needed
particularly in the context of VBF production. If such studies reveal VBF can yield
significant improvements in sensitivity, then developing triggers for 2015 aimed at
these final states may offer a significant advantage.
• Also well-motivated are studies of exotic decays in the tth associated production chan-
nel, which can be competitive with Wh,Zh for non-SM Higgs decays. The combina-
toric backgrounds that make this channel difficult for a SM Higgs may be significantly
reduced for certain non-SM decay modes [218], and the hard leptons and b jets from
the t decays offer another inclusive trigger pathway.
20.6. Summary of Suggestions
Based on our results so far, we find that the following searches are highly motivated
within the 7 and 8 TeV data set as well as within future data sets. In some cases, especially
174
in regimes where the objects are collimated, searches have already been done by ATLAS
and/or CMS, though not always with the full data set.
• Search for h → ZDZD → (`+`−)(`+`−) across the full range of kinematically al-
lowed ZD masses, including regimes where the leptons are collimated (forming simple
“lepton-jets”). This could also be interpreted as a search for h→ ZDZ′D if the dilep-
ton pairs have different masses, or as h → ZDZD+ E/T , for small E/T , if the condition
m4` = mh is relaxed.
• Search for h→ ZZD → (`+`−)(`+`−) across the full range of kinematically allowed ZD
masses, including regimes where the leptons are collimated (forming a simple “lepton-
jet”). This search should also be interpreted as a search for h→ Za→ (`+`−)(µ+µ−).
• Search for h → `+`−+ E/T , including regimes where the leptons are collimated, and
including the cases where there is a resonance in m``. Benchmark models include h→
XY → ZDY Y or aY Y , h → XX → aa(′)Y Y for ma < 2mτ , h → XX → Z∗Z∗Y Y ,
where Y is invisible and Z∗ is an off-shell Z boson.
• Search for h → `+`−`+`−+ E/T , including regimes where the leptons are collimated,
and including the cases where there is a resonance in m``. Benchmark models include
h → XX → ZDZDY Y , h → XX → aa(′)Y Y for ma < 2mτ , h → XX → Z∗Z∗Y Y ,
where Y is invisible and Z∗ is an off-shell Z.
• Search for h → aa → (bb)(µ+µ−) across the full range of kinematically allowed a
masses, including regimes where the bb pair tend to merge. If possible, searches for
h→ aa′, where ma > 2mb > ma′ , could be considered, in which case the leptons may
be collimated.
• Search for h → aa → (τ+τ−)(µ+µ−) across the full range of kinematically allowed a
masses, including regimes where the leptons are collimated. A search for h → aa →
(τ+τ−)(τ+τ−) may not be as powerful, but deserves to be investigated further.
• Search for h → aa → (γγ)(γγ), including regimes where the photons are collimated.
This could also be interpreted as a search for h → aa′ if the diphoton pairs have
different masses, or as h → aa + E/T , for small E/T , if the condition m4γ = mh is
relaxed.
175
• Search for h → γγ + E/T , including the cases where there is a resonance in mγγ.
Benchmark models include h → XY → aY Y , h → XX → aa(′)Y Y , h → XX →
(γY )(γY ), where Y is invisible.
Additional theoretical and experimental studies relevant for 14 TeV and up to 100 fb−1
appear warranted for
• h→ XY → γY Y where Y is invisible, giving γ + E/T .
• h→ aa→ (bb)(bb).
• h→ aa→ (bb)(τ+τ−), perhaps in VBF production.
Note also the other suggestions in §20.5.
It is important to reemphasize that searches should look for a reconstructucted “Higgs”
resonance at mass not equal to 125 GeV. This is because new Higgs bosons, produced with
lower rates and unknown branching fractions, may lie hidden in the data, either at higher
or lower masses than the known Higgs. Also, h decays involving low E/T may show up in
searches for SM or non-SM decay modes as bumps or broad features below 125 GeV.
We conclude by noting the implications of our study for triggering in Run II.
• For several searches, boosted h recoiling against a leptonically-decaying W or Z is
expected to be necessary. Presumably even the higher lepton pT thresholds required
at Run II will not much affect these searches.
• However, many searches that we have not studied directly (high multiplicity of soft
particles, long-lived particles, etc.) will require as many events as possible be retained
under triggers on the lepton in Wh (and tth) and on the jets in VBF. Keeping the
one-lepton trigger thresholds low, or combining one lepton or VBF dijet triggers with
signatures of unusual Higgs decay final states, is critically important for achieving high
sensitivity.
• Many of our searches involve triggering on two or more leptons, possibly soft and
possibly collimated; these issues have been well-explored already in Run I and should
remain a priority.
176
• For h→ `+`−E/T , if the leptons are soft and the E/T is substantial, then a VBF-based
search may be essential, in which triggering off a combination of the VBF jets, the E/T ,
and the soft leptons may be needed.
• The same issues apply to photons; triggering on multiple photons, possibly collimated,
and on softer photons in combination with VBF jets and E/T may be important.
• We have not studied them here, but final states with leptons and at least one photon
are possible; this may have trigger implications for any combined lepton and photon
trigger pathway.
• Triggering in the VBF context is also potentially important for other difficult modes,
such as bbττ , bbE/T , etc., but more theory studies are needed.
• Although the search at CMS for γ + E/T is expected to benefit from a data parking
trigger in the 2012 data, the trigger challenge for this final state in Run II is very
severe, and a thorough study is needed to determine if it is both feasible and worth
the bandwidth. The VBF channel may be helpful here.
To conclude, exotic decays of the Higgs represent a unique opportunity to discover new
physics. A large number of experimental searches and additional theoretical and experimen-
tal studies are highly motivated in order to realize the full and exciting physics potential of
the LHC.
Acknowledgements
We thank Neil Christensen, Hooman Davoudiasl, Sally Dawson, Albert de Roeck, Adam
Falkowski, Yuri Gershtein, Andy Haas, Tao Han, John Hobbs, Jinrui Huang, Philip Il-
ten, Greg Landsberg, Hye-Sung Lee, Ian Lewis, Patrick Meade, Maurizio Pierini, George
Redlinger, Pedro Schwaller, Robert Shrock, George Sterman, Shufang Su, Scott Thomas,
Dmitri Tsybychev, Tomer Volansky, Lian-Tao Wang, and Felix Yu for useful conversations.
D. C. and Z. S. are supported in part by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under
grant PHY-0969739. R. E. is supported in part by the Department of Energy (DoE) Early
Career research program DESC0008061 and by a Sloan Foundation Research Fellowship.
S. G. is supported in part by Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics. Research at
Perimeter Institute is supported by the Government of Canada through Industry Canada
177
and by the Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Research and Innovation P. J. is
supported in part by the DoE under grant DE-FG02-97ER41022. A. K. is supported in
part by the NSF under Grant PHY-0855591. T. L is supported in part by his start-up fund
at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. Z. L. is supported in part by
the DoE under grant DE-FG02-95ER40896, by the NSF under grant PHY-0969510 (LHC
Theory Initiative), the Andrew Mellon Predoctoral Fellowship from Dietrich School of Art
and Science, University of Pittsburgh, and by the PITT PACC. D. M. is supported in part
by NSERC, Canada and the US Dept. of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG02-96ER40956.
J. S. is supported in part by NSF grant PHY-1067976 with additional support for this work
provided by the LHC Theory Initiative under grant NSF-PHY-0969510. M. S. is supported
in part by the DOE under grants DE-FG02-96ER40959 and DE-SC00391 and by the NSF
under grant PHY-0904069. B. T. is supported in part by the DoE under grants DE-FG-
02-91ER40676 and DE-FG-02-95ER40896, by the NSF under grant PHY-0969510 (LHC
Theory Initiative), and by the PITT PACC. Y. Z. is supported in part by the DoE under
grant DESC0008061. We thank variously the SEARCH Workshop; the Aspen Center for
Physics under Grant NSF 1066293; the KITP and the National Science Foundation under
Grant No. PHY05-25915; the Galileo Galilei Institute for Theoretical Physics and the INFN;
and Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics China for hospitality during the completion of
this work.
Appendix A: Decay Rate Computation for 2HDM+S Light Scalar and Pseudoscalar
We will now outline how the branching ratios in §1.3.1 (SM+S) and §1.3.2 (2HDM+S)
are calculated. We mostly follow [97, 98], neglecting hadronization effects. This is sufficient
for our purposes of demonstrating the range of possible exotic Higgs decay phenomenologies
in 2HDM+S.
The relevant part of the Lagrangian is
L ⊃ −∑f
mf
v
[ff(H0
1gH01ff
+H02gH0
2ff
)− ifγ5fA
0gA0ff
], (A1)
where f stands for SM charged fermions. Higgs-vector boson interactions are obtained from
178
the kinematic terms of the vector bosons. The relevant terms are
L ⊃ −∑V
2m2V
v
[VµV
µ(H0
1gH01V V
+H02gH0
2V V
)]+∑i=1,2
imZ
vgZH0
i A0∂µZ
µH0i A
0 . (A2)
Given the the A0, H01,2 content of the singlet-like scalar s and pseudoscalar a in Eqs. (17)
and (24), and the couplings in Table II, the couplings gsff , gaff , and gsV V can be derived.
The approach for calculating branching ratios is different for light Higgs mass above or
below ∼ GeV. The theoretical uncertainties in the hadronic region of the latter case are
very large, and an effective theory computation must be used.
A.1. Light Singlet Mass Above 1 GeV
According to the discussion in §1.3.2, the relevant decay channel for the lightest Higgs
scalar/pseudoscalar are a/s → ff , a/s → γγ, and a/s → gg. Ref. [97] contains the decay
widths for the MSSM Higgs at tree-level and higher orders. We include the relevant formulas
here, which are valid for the 2HDM+S and SM+S case after rescaling the Yukawa and gauge
couplings by the small singlet mixing angle.
(i) Decays to light SM fermion pairs a/s→ ff .
The tree level decay width of φ = a, s into fermion pairs is given by
Γ(φ→ ff) =NcGF
4√
2πg2φff mφm
2f β
pf , (A3)
where the phase volume, β, is
βf =
√1−
4m2f
m2φ
(A4)
with p = 1(3) for φ = pseudoscalar a (scalar s). For quarks, additional QCD radiative
corrections are taken into consideration. For light quarks with mass mq � mφ/2
(q = u, d, s for mφ we considered), the O(αs) correction is given by
Γ(φ→ qq) =3GF
4√
2πg2φqqmφm
2q
(1 +
17
3
αsπ
). (A5)
Here mq stands for the running of the quark mass in the MS scheme with the renor-
malization scale µ = mφ. This redefinition absorbs logarithms of masses of quarks
from NLO QCD. αs stands for the running of strong coupling. Again we choose the
179
renormalization scale µ = mφ. Above ∼ GeV, αs is small enough that perturbative
QCD can give accurate results.
The masses of heavy quarks (b and c) can be close to mφ/2, where Eq. A5 is no
longer applicable. Instead we use the threshold formula for the QCD correction at
O(αs) [390–392]:
Γ(φ→ QQ) =GFNc
4√
2πg2φQQmφm
2Q
(1 +
αsπδφ
)βpQ. (A6)
where mQ is the quark pole mass. For the pseudo-scalar and the scalar scenarios, δφ
are respectively given by
δa =4
3
(a
βQ+
19 + 2β2Q + 3β4
Q
16βQln γ +
21− 3β2Q
8
), (A7)
δs =4
3
(a
βQ+
3 + 34β2Q − 13β4
Q
16β3Q
ln γ +21β2
Q − 3
8β2Q
)(A8)
with
γ =1 + βQ1− βQ
, (A9)
a = (1 + β2Q)
[2Li2(−γ−1) + 4Li2(γ−1)− ln γ ln
8β2Q
(1 + βQ)3
]− βQ ln
[64β4
Q
(1− β2Q)3
].
(A10)
The relations between Eq. A5 and Eq. A6 are shown in [391, 392].
(ii) Loop induced decays to photon pairs a/s→ γγ.
The couplings between Higgs scalars and γγ are induced by charged particle loops.
The decay widths can be written as
Γ(a→ γγ) =GFα
2m3a
128√
2π3
∣∣∣∑f
NcQ2fgaff A
a1/2
(m2a
4m2f
)∣∣∣2 (A11)
Γ(s→ γγ) =GFα
2m3s
128√
2π3
∣∣∣∑f
NcQ2fgsff A
s1/2
(m2s
4m2f
)+ gsV V A
s1
(m2s
4m2W
) ∣∣∣2 , (A12)
where Qf ’s are electric charges in units of e. The form factors for spin half and one
particles, A1/2 and A1, are given by
Aa1/2(x) = 2x−1f(x) (A13)
As1/2(x) = 2[x+ (x− 1)f(x)]x−2 (A14)
As1(x) = − [2x2 + 3x+ 3(2x− 1)f(x)]x−2 (A15)
180
with
f(x) =
arcsin2√x x ≤ 1
−14
[log
1+√
1−1/x
1−√
1−1/x− iπ
]2
x > 1. (A16)
In the limit x→ 0
Aa1/2 → 2 (A17)
As1/2 → 4/3 (A18)
As1 → − 7 (A19)
We neglect the contributions of possible heavy BSM charged particles, which are gener-
ically highly suppressed.
Eq. (A12) shows that the dominant contribution to s → γγ for SM-like fermion cou-
plings comes from W - and t-loops. The top loop also dominates a→ γγ but there is no
W contribution. However, α′ and β-dependent factors in the couplings can also make
the b loop important. This occurs in Type II and Type IV models when tan β× tanα′
or tanα is large for s or a, respectively. The QCD corrections can be found in [97].
(iii) Loop induced decays to gluon pairs a, s→ gg.
Gluons are massless particles that couple to the Higgs dominantly via heavy quark
loops, Q = t, b, c. The decay widths are given by
Γ(φ→ gg) =GF α
2sm
3φ
36√
2π3
∣∣∣34
∑Q=t,b,c
gφQQAφ1/2
(m2φ
4m2Q
)∣∣∣2 . (A20)
Other potential heavy particle contributions are neglected. The QCD corrections are
shown in [97].
(iv) Other Decay Channels of the lightest Higgs.
Decays to γ+quarkonium final states are enhanced for pseudoscalar masses near the
2c, 2b thresholds. These are challenging to calculate [123? ], and we neglect them
along with hadronization effects, which likely invalidates our quantitative results near
the B/D-meson and quarkonia thresholds.
181
A.2. Light Singlet Mass Below 1 GeV
For a sub-GeV (pseudo)scalar Higgs, hadronization effects dominate and the perturbative
analysis is not valid above the pion threshold. The calculation of decay widths in this region
is extremely difficult due to the QCD uncertainties in the hadronic final states. Light
(pseudo)scalars that decay to two (three) pions would look similar to hadronic taus in an
experimental analysis, and care would have to be taken not to reject them based on track
quality requirements.
We now outline our methods for estimating the branching ratios in this low-mass regime.
(i) Singlet-like scalar s
For ms < 2me ' 1.02 MeV, γγ decay is the only available channel. In the region
2me ≤ ms < 2mµ ' 211 MeV, e+e− rises and competes with γγ. Br’s of γγ may be
enhanced in Type II, III, and IV by appropriate choice of tan β and α′. In the region
2mµ ≤ ms < 2mπ0 ' 270 MeV, µ+µ− decay appears and replaces e+e− to compete
with γγ.
Branching ratios are most difficult to estimate accurately in the mass window from
the ππ threshold to about 1 GeV. µ+µ− competes with γγ, ππ, KK, and ηη. Several
methods are available for the estimation in this region, such as soft pion theory and
the chiral Lagrangian method. All suffer from significant final-state uncertainties.
According to Ref. [40], the perturbative spectator approximation gives a reasonable
and relatively simple approximation of decay widths. They are given by47
Γ(s→ γγ) =GFα
2m3s
128√
2π3
∣∣∣∑f
NcQ2fgsff A
s1/2
(m2s
4m2f
)− 7gsV V
∣∣∣2 (A21)
Γ(s→ µµ, ee) =GF
4√
2πmsg
2sµµ,eem
2µ,eβ
3µ (A22)
Γ(s→ uu, dd) =3GF
4√
2πmsg
2suu,ddm
2u,dβ
3π (A23)
Γ(s→ ss) =3GF
4√
2πmsg
2sssm
2sβ
3K (A24)
Γ(s→ gg) =GFα
2sm
3s
36√
2π3
(∑q
gsqq − (gsuu + gsdd)β3π − gsssβ3
K
)2
(A25)
47 Here “s” stands for the strange quark in order to differentiate with the singlet-like scalar, s.
182
and we define the non-charm hadron decay width as
Γ(s→ had.) = Γ(s→ uu) + Γ(s→ dd) + Γ(s→ ss) + Γ(s→ gg). (A26)
Another source of uncertainty in the Br estimation lies in the definition of the light
quark mass. Different definitions render different Br’s, especially to γγ. For our com-
putation, we use mu = md = 40 MeV, ms = 450 MeV, and αs/π = 0.15 as [40]. The
values are chosen such that results from the spectator approximation method match
results from the chiral Lagrangian method, but we emphasize that the uncertainties
remain very large above the pion threshold.
(ii) Singlet-like pseudoscalar a
Below the 3π threshold (ma < 3mπ0 ' 405 MeV), Br’s of a are similar to Br’s of h
and dictated mostly by thresholds (and possibly a competitive decay to γγ). Above
the 3π threshold, decays of a to 3π, ρ0γ, ωγ, θππ arise as ma increases and competes
with µ+µ− and γγ decays. We apply a similar spectator approximation as for the
scalar case, with a threshold of twice the Kaon mass, 2mK , for strange quark final
states [393],
Γ(a→ γγ) =GFα
2m3a
128√
2π3
∣∣∣∑f
NcQ2fgaff A
a1/2
(m2a
4m2f
)∣∣∣2 (A27)
Γ(a→ µµ, ee) =GF
4√
2πmag
2aµµ,eem
2µ,eβµ (A28)
Γ(a→ uu, dd) =3GF
4√
2πmag
2auu,ddm
2u,dβπ (A29)
Γ(a→ ss) =3GF
4√
2πmag
2assm
2sβK (A30)
Γ(a→ gg) =GFα
2sm
3a
16√
2π3
(∑q
gaqq − (gauu + gadd)βπ − gassβK
)2
(A31)
Γ(a→ had.) ≡ Γ(a→ uu) + Γ(a→ dd) + Γ(a→ ss) + Γ(a→ gg) . (A32)
Appendix B: Surveying Higgs phenomenology in the PQ-NMSSM
As the exotic Higgs decay phenomenology of the PQ-limit of the NMSSM may not be as
well-known as the h → aa decays familiar from the NMSSM in the R-symmetric limit, we
183
Examples h→ χ1χ2 h→ χ1χ2 h→ χ2χ2
λ 0.18 0.064 0.02
κ 3.4× 10−3 9.0× 10−3 1.2× 10−3
tanβ 9.0 12.5 10
λs(GeV) 326 138 160
Aλ(GeV) 2960 1700 1800
Aκ(GeV) -43.5 -17 -7
M1(GeV) 85 80 55
ms(GeV) 23.0 34.6 17.4
mh(GeV) 124.7 125.3 124.9
ma(GeV) 28.7 31.6 14.2
mχ1(GeV) 12.7 39.1 19.7
mχ2(GeV) 80.8 66.4 47.3
BR(h→ aa) < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01
BR(h→ χ1χ1) < 0.01 0.04 < 0.01
BR(h→ χ1χ2) 0.28 0.27 0.05
BR(h→ χ2χ2) < 0.01 < 0.01 0.31
BR(χ2 → χ1(a, s) 0.92+0.08 < 0.01 0.09 + 0.60
BR(χ2 → χ1(a, s)∗) < 0.01 0.96 0.30
BR(χ2 → χ1γ) < 0.01 0.04 0.01
TABLE XXI: Example models illustrating the main exotic decay modes of the SM-like Higgs boson
in the PQ-symmetry limit of the NMSSM [53]. Here soft squark masses of 2 TeV, slepton masses
of 200 GeV, Au,d,e = −3.5 TeV, and wino and gluino soft masses 250 and 2000 GeV are universally
assumed.
provide in this Appendix some quantitative illustrations of the phenomenology discussed in
§1.3.8 (also see [52, 53]).
Fig. 36 shows the results of parameter scans run with the package NMSSMTools [204–
207]. All points in this scan are required to to have a SM-like Higgs in the mass window
mh ∈ (124, 126) GeV. We assumed soft squark masses of 2 TeV, slepton masses of 200 GeV,
184
FIG. 36: Higgs phenomenology in the PQ-symmetry limit of the NMSSM, as discussed in §1.3.8
[53]. Top row: Masses of s, a, and χ1, respectively. Second and Third rows: Branching ratios
of the SM-like Higgs h (denoted here as h2) to bb, ss, aa, χ1χ1, χ1χ2, and χ2χ2, respectively.
Bottom row: Branching ratios of the next-to-lightest neutralino χ2 to on-shell χ1s + χ1a and
χ1Z, respectively. All points are required to have a mass 124 − 126 GeV for their SM-like Higgs
boson. Green (light gray) points are sampled in the ranges 3 ≤ tanβ ≤ 30, 0.015 ≤ λ ≤ 0.5,
0.0005 ≤ κ ≤ 0.05, −0.8 ≤ ε′ ≤ 0.8, −50 GeV ≤ Aκ ≤ 0, and 0.1 TeV ≤ λvs ≤ 1 TeV, Green
(light gray) points cover the whole scan range, red (medium gray) points correspond to the subset
satisfying λ < 0.30, κ/λ < 0.05 and λvs < 350 GeV, while blue (dark gray) points satisfy λ < 0.15,
κ/λ < 0.03 and λvs < 250 GeV.
185
Au,d,e = −3.5 TeV, and bino, wino and gluino masses of 30-120, 150-500 and 2000 GeV,
respectively. Scans are done over the parameter ε ≡ λµeff/mZ × ε′, with ε′ given by Eq. 63
and µeff ≡ λvs.
The simultaneous smallness of the s, a, and χ1 masses and the generic suppression of
Br(h→ aa, ss) are shown in the first and the second rows of Fig. 36. The branching ratios
of h into χ1χ1, χ1χ2, and χ2χ2 as well as the branching ratios of χ2 into χ1s + χ1a (on-
shell) and χ1Z (on-shell) are presented in the third row. These plots clearly indicate that,
although h → χ1χ1 has a larger available phase space, that branching fraction tends to
be suppressed compared to h → χ2χ2 and especially h → χ1χ2. Almost all points in the
blue region have mχ2 −mχ1 > min{ms,ma}. Thus χ2 overwhelmingly decays into on-shell
s or a and χ1, while both χ2 → χ1Z and three-body decays are suppressed. In the red
and green regions, the min{ms,ma} values increase. Some points (mainly green ones) have
mχ2 −mχ1 < min{ms,ma}, so that χ2 → χ1γ may become significant. On-shell χ2 → χ1Z
can occur in a small sliver of the m1,m2 plane.
We present three example model points in Table XXI, which represent the main exotic
Higgs decay modes in this limit: (1) h → χ1χ2, with χ2 → χ1a, χ1s; (2) h → χ1χ2, with
χ2 mainly decaying to χ1a∗ or χ1s
∗ with a∗ → SM and s∗ → SM; (3) h → χ2χ2, with χ2
decaying to χ1a, χ1s.
[1] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et. al., Observation of a new particle in the search for the
Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys.Lett. B716 (2012)
1–29, [arXiv:1207.7214].
[2] CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et. al., Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125
GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC, Phys.Lett. B716 (2012) 30–61,
[arXiv:1207.7235].
[3] F. Englert and R. Brout, Broken Symmetry and the Mass of Gauge Vector Mesons,
Phys.Rev.Lett. 13 (1964) 321–323.
[4] P. W. Higgs, Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields, Phys.Lett. 12 (1964)
132–133.
[5] P. W. Higgs, Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons, Phys.Rev.Lett. 13
186
(1964) 508–509.
[6] G. Guralnik, C. Hagen, and T. Kibble, Global Conservation Laws and Massless Particles,
Phys.Rev.Lett. 13 (1964) 585–587.
[7] P. W. Higgs, Spontaneous Symmetry Breakdown without Massless Bosons, Phys.Rev. 145
(1966) 1156–1163.
[8] T. Kibble, Symmetry breaking in nonAbelian gauge theories, Phys.Rev. 155 (1967)
1554–1561.
[9] S. Glashow, Partial Symmetries of Weak Interactions, Nucl.Phys. 22 (1961) 579–588.
[10] S. Weinberg, A Model of Leptons, Phys.Rev.Lett. 19 (1967) 1264–1266.
[11] A. Salam, Weak and electromagnetic interactions, Elementary particle physics: relativistic
groups and analyticity, Proceedings of the eighth Nobel symposium (1968).
[12] LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group Collaboration, S. Dittmaier et. al.,
Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 1. Inclusive Observables, arXiv:1101.0593.
[13] G. Belanger, B. Dumont, U. Ellwanger, J. Gunion, and S. Kraml, Status of invisible Higgs
decays, arXiv:1302.5694.
[14] P. P. Giardino, K. Kannike, I. Masina, M. Raidal, and A. Strumia, The universal Higgs fit,
arXiv:1303.3570.
[15] J. Ellis and T. You, Updated Global Analysis of Higgs Couplings, arXiv:1303.3879.
[16] K. Cheung, J. S. Lee, and P.-Y. Tseng, Higgs Precision (Higgcision) Era begins,
arXiv:1302.3794.
[17] A. Djouadi and G. Moreau, The couplings of the Higgs boson and its CP properties from
fits of the signal strengths and their ratios at the 7+8 TeV LHC, arXiv:1303.6591.
[18] CMS Collaboration, Combination of standard model Higgs boson searches and
measurements of the properties of the new boson with a mass near 125 GeV, .
[19] ATLAS Collaboration, Combined coupling measurements of the Higgs-like boson with the
ATLAS detector using up to 25 fb−1 of proton-proton collision data, .
[20] B. A. Dobrescu and J. D. Lykken, Coupling spans of the Higgs-like boson, JHEP 1302
(2013) 073, [arXiv:1210.3342].
[21] M. E. Peskin, Comparison of LHC and ILC Capabilities for Higgs Boson Coupling
Measurements, arXiv:1207.2516.
[22] CMS Collaboration, Projected Performance of an Upgraded CMS Detector at the LHC and
187
HL-LHC: Contribution to the Snowmass Process, arXiv:1307.7135.
[23] ATLAS Collaboration, Physics at a High-Luminosity LHC with ATLAS,
arXiv:1307.7292.
[24] R. E. Shrock and M. Suzuki, Invisible Decays of Higgs Bosons, Phys.Lett. B110 (1982) 250.
[25] J. Gunion and H. E. Haber, Higgs Bosons in Supersymmetric Models. 1., Nucl.Phys. B272
(1986) 1.
[26] L.-F. Li, Y. Liu, and L. Wolfenstein, HIDDEN HIGGS PARTICLES, Phys.Lett. B159
(1985) 45.
[27] J. Gunion and H. E. Haber, Higgs Bosons in Supersymmetric Models. 2. Implications for
Phenomenology, Nucl.Phys. B278 (1986) 449.
[28] V. Silveira and A. Zee, SCALAR PHANTOMS, Phys.Lett. B161 (1985) 136.
[29] T. Binoth and J. van der Bij, Influence of strongly coupled, hidden scalars on Higgs signals,
Z.Phys. C75 (1997) 17–25, [hep-ph/9608245].
[30] R. Schabinger and J. D. Wells, A Minimal spontaneously broken hidden sector and its
impact on Higgs boson physics at the large hadron collider, Phys.Rev. D72 (2005) 093007,
[hep-ph/0509209].
[31] M. J. Strassler and K. M. Zurek, Echoes of a hidden valley at hadron colliders, Phys.Lett.
B651 (2007) 374–379, [hep-ph/0604261].
[32] B. Patt and F. Wilczek, Higgs-field portal into hidden sectors, hep-ph/0605188.
[33] CMS Collaboration, Data Parking and Data Scouting at the CMS Experiment, 2012. CMS
DP-2012/022.
[34] B. A. Petersen, The ATLAS Trigger Performance and Evolution, Tech. Rep.
ATL-DAQ-PROC-2012-071, CERN, Geneva, Nov, 2012.
[35] S. Chang, R. Dermisek, J. F. Gunion, and N. Weiner, Nonstandard Higgs Boson Decays,
Ann.Rev.Nucl.Part.Sci. 58 (2008) 75–98, [arXiv:0801.4554].
[36] G. Belanger, U. Ellwanger, J. Gunion, Y. Jiang, and S. Kraml, Two Higgs Bosons at the
Tevatron and the LHC?, arXiv:1208.4952.
[37] P. Bechtle, S. Heinemeyer, O. Stal, T. Stefaniak, G. Weiglein, et. al., MSSM Interpretations
of the LHC Discovery: Light or Heavy Higgs?, Eur.Phys.J. C73 (2013) 2354,
[arXiv:1211.1955].
[38] R. Barbieri, D. Buttazzo, K. Kannike, F. Sala, and A. Tesi, One or more Higgs bosons?,
188
arXiv:1307.4937.
[39] T. Han, T. Li, S. Su, and L.-T. Wang, Non-Decoupling MSSM Higgs Sector and Light
Superpartners, arXiv:1306.3229.
[40] J. Gunion, H. Haber, G. Kane, and S. Dawson, The Higgs Hunter’s Guide. Frontiers in
Physics, V. 80. Perseus Pub., 2000.
[41] G. Blankenburg, J. Ellis, and G. Isidori, Flavour-Changing Decays of a 125 GeV Higgs-like
Particle, Phys.Lett. B712 (2012) 386–390, [arXiv:1202.5704].
[42] R. Harnik, J. Kopp, and J. Zupan, Flavor Violating Higgs Decays, JHEP 1303 (2013) 026,
[arXiv:1209.1397].
[43] L3 Collaboration, Search for Scalar Leptons and Scalar Quarks at LEP, hep-ex/0310007.
[44] B. Batell, C. E. M. Wagner, and L.-T. Wang, Constraints on a Very Light Sbottom, JHEP
1405 (2014) 002, [arXiv:1312.2590].
[45] S. B. Giddings, T. Liu, I. Low, and E. Mintun, Unraveling The Physics Behind Modified
Higgs Couplings – LHC vs. a Higgs Factory, arXiv:1301.2324.
[46] O. J. Eboli and D. Zeppenfeld, Observing an invisible Higgs boson, Phys.Lett. B495 (2000)
147–154, [hep-ph/0009158].
[47] Y. Bai, P. Draper, and J. Shelton, Measuring the Invisible Higgs Width at the 7 TeV LHC,
JHEP 1207 (2012) 192, [arXiv:1112.4496].
[48] F. Riva, C. Biggio, and A. Pomarol, Is the 125 GeV Higgs the superpartner of a neutrino?,
arXiv:1211.4526.
[49] A. Azatov, R. Contino, A. Di Iura, and J. Galloway, New Prospects for Higgs
Compositeness in h - gt; Zgamma, arXiv:1308.2676.
[50] C. Petersson, A. Romagnoni, and R. Torre, Higgs Decay with Monophoton + MET
Signature from Low Scale Supersymmetry Breaking, arXiv:1203.4563.
[51] M. J. Strassler, Possible effects of a hidden valley on supersymmetric phenomenology,
hep-ph/0607160.
[52] P. Draper, T. Liu, C. E. Wagner, L.-T. Wang, and H. Zhang, Dark Light-Higgs Bosons,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011) 121805, [arXiv:1009.3963].
[53] J. Huang, T. Liu, L.-T. Wang, and F. Yu, Supersymmetric Exotic Decays of the 125 GeV
Higgs Boson, Phys.Rev.Lett. 112 (2014) 221803, [arXiv:1309.6633].
[54] A. de Gouvea, GeV seesaw, accidentally small neutrino masses, and Higgs decays to
189
neutrinos, arXiv:0706.1732.
[55] M. L. Graesser, Experimental Constraints on Higgs Boson Decays to TeV-scale
Right-Handed Neutrinos, arXiv:0705.2190.
[56] M. L. Graesser, Broadening the Higgs boson with right-handed neutrinos and a higher
dimension operator at the electroweak scale, Phys.Rev. D76 (2007) 075006,
[arXiv:0704.0438].
[57] S. Chang and N. Weiner, Nonstandard Higgs decays with visible and missing energy, JHEP
0805 (2008) 074, [arXiv:0710.4591].
[58] U. Ellwanger, J. F. Gunion, C. Hugonie, and S. Moretti, Towards a no lose theorem for
NMSSM Higgs discovery at the LHC, hep-ph/0305109.
[59] U. Ellwanger, J. F. Gunion, and C. Hugonie, Difficult scenarios for NMSSM Higgs
discovery at the LHC, JHEP 0507 (2005) 041, [hep-ph/0503203].
[60] M. Almarashi and S. Moretti, Very Light CP-odd Higgs bosons of the NMSSM at the LHC
in 4b-quark final states, Phys.Rev. D84 (2011) 015014, [arXiv:1105.4191].
[61] U. Ellwanger, J. Gunion, C. Hugonie, and S. Moretti, NMSSM Higgs discovery at the LHC,
hep-ph/0401228.
[62] W. Kilian, D. Rainwater, and J. Reuter, Pseudo-axions in little Higgs models, Phys.Rev.
D71 (2005) 015008, [hep-ph/0411213].
[63] K. Cheung and J. Song, Light pseudoscalar eta and H → ηη decay in the simplest little
Higgs mode, Phys.Rev. D76 (2007) 035007, [hep-ph/0611294].
[64] C. Csaki, J. Hubisz, G. D. Kribs, P. Meade, and J. Terning, Variations of little Higgs
models and their electroweak constraints, Phys.Rev. D68 (2003) 035009, [hep-ph/0303236].
[65] H.-C. Cheng, B. A. Dobrescu, and C. T. Hill, Electroweak symmetry breaking and extra
dimensions, Nucl.Phys. B589 (2000) 249–268, [hep-ph/9912343].
[66] M. Cvetic, D. A. Demir, J. Espinosa, L. Everett, and P. Langacker, Electroweak breaking
and the mu problem in supergravity models with an additional U(1), Phys.Rev. D56 (1997)
2861, [hep-ph/9703317].
[67] J. Erler, P. Langacker, and T.-J. Li, The Z - Z ′ mass hierarchy in a supersymmetric model
with a secluded U(1) -prime breaking sector, Phys.Rev. D66 (2002) 015002,
[hep-ph/0205001].
[68] C. Panagiotakopoulos and K. Tamvakis, New minimal extension of MSSM, Phys.Lett.
190
B469 (1999) 145–148, [hep-ph/9908351].
[69] C. Panagiotakopoulos and A. Pilaftsis, Higgs scalars in the minimal nonminimal
supersymmetric standard model, Phys.Rev. D63 (2001) 055003, [hep-ph/0008268].
[70] B. A. Dobrescu and K. T. Matchev, Light Axion Within the Next-to-Minimal
Supersymmetric Standard Model, JHEP 0009 (2000) 031, [hep-ph/0008192].
[71] V. Barger, P. Langacker, and G. Shaughnessy, Singlet extensions of the MSSM, AIP
Conf.Proc. 903 (2007) 32–39, [hep-ph/0611112].
[72] J. D. Mason, D. E. Morrissey, and D. Poland, Higgs Boson Decays to Neutralinos in
Low-Scale Gauge Mediation, Phys.Rev. D80 (2009) 115015, [arXiv:0909.3523].
[73] C. Englert, M. Spannowsky, and C. Wymant, Partially (in)visible Higgs decays at the LHC,
Phys.Lett. B718 (2012) 538–544, [arXiv:1209.0494].
[74] B. Batell, J. Pradler, and M. Spannowsky, Dark Matter from Minimal Flavor Violation,
JHEP 1108 (2011) 038, [arXiv:1105.1781].
[75] M. J. Strassler and K. M. Zurek, Discovering the Higgs through highly-displaced vertices,
Phys.Lett. B661 (2008) 263–267, [hep-ph/0605193].
[76] L. M. Carpenter, D. E. Kaplan, and E.-J. Rhee, Reduced fine-tuning in supersymmetry with
R-parity violation, Phys.Rev.Lett. 99 (2007) 211801, [hep-ph/0607204].
[77] D0 Collaboration, V. Abazov et. al., Search for neutral, long-lived particles decaying into
two muons in pp collisions at√s = 1.96 TeV, Phys.Rev.Lett. 97 (2006) 161802,
[hep-ex/0607028].
[78] CDF Collaboration Collaboration, A. Abulencia et. al., Search for heavy, long-lived
particles that decay to photons at CDF II, Phys.Rev.Lett. 99 (2007) 121801,
[arXiv:0704.0760].
[79] CDF Collaboration Collaboration, T. Aaltonen et. al., Search for Heavy, Long-Lived
Neutralinos that Decay to Photons at CDF II Using Photon Timing, Phys.Rev. D78 (2008)
032015, [arXiv:0804.1043].
[80] D0 Collaboration Collaboration, V. Abazov et. al., Search for long-lived particles
decaying into electron or photon pairs with the D0 detector, Phys.Rev.Lett. 101 (2008)
111802, [arXiv:0806.2223].
[81] D0 Collaboration Collaboration, V. Abazov et. al., Search for Resonant Pair Production
of long-lived particles decaying to b anti-b in p anti-p collisions at s**(1/2) = 1.96-TeV,
191
Phys.Rev.Lett. 103 (2009) 071801, [arXiv:0906.1787].
[82] CMS Collaboration Collaboration, C. Collaboration, Search for new physics with
long-lived particles decaying to photons and missing energy, .
[83] CMS Collaboration Collaboration, C. Collaboration, Search for Heavy Resonances
Decaying to Long-Lived Neutral Particles in the Displaced Lepton Channel, .
[84] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et. al., Search for displaced muonic lepton jets from light
Higgs boson decay in proton-proton collisions at√s = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector,
Phys.Lett. B721 (2013) 32–50, [arXiv:1210.0435].
[85] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et. al., Search for a light Higgs boson decaying to long-lived
weakly-interacting particles in proton-proton collisions at√s = 7 TeV with the ATLAS
detector, Phys.Rev.Lett. 108 (2012) 251801, [arXiv:1203.1303].
[86] CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et. al., Search for new physics with long-lived particles
decaying to photons and missing energy in pp collisions at√s = 7 TeV, JHEP 1211 (2012)
172, [arXiv:1207.0627].
[87] LHCb Collaboration Collaboration, Search for Higgs-like bosons decaying into long-lived
exotic particles, .
[88] CMS Collaboration, C. Collaboration, Search in the displaced lepton channel for heavy
resonances decaying to long-lived neutral particles, .
[89] CMS Collaboration Collaboration, C. Collaboration, Search for Long-Lived Particles
using Displaced Photons in pp Collisions at√s = 7 TeV, .
[90] CMS Collaboration Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et. al., Search for long-lived particles
decaying to photons and missing energy in proton-proton collisions at√s = 7 TeV,
Phys.Lett. B722 (2013) 273–294, [arXiv:1212.1838].
[91] CMS Collaboration Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et. al., Search in leptonic channels for
heavy resonances decaying to long-lived neutral particles, JHEP 1302 (2013) 085,
[arXiv:1211.2472].
[92] ATLAS Collaboration Collaboration, G. Aad et. al., Search for long-lived, heavy
particles in final states with a muon and multi-track displaced vertex in proton-proton
collisions at√s = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys.Lett. B719 (2013) 280–298,
[arXiv:1210.7451].
[93] ATLAS Collaboration Collaboration, Search for Displaced Muon Jets from light Higgs
192
boson decay in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 Tev with the ATLAS detector, .
[94] CMS Collaboration Collaboration, C. Collaboration, Search for long-lived neutral
particles decaying to dijets, .
[95] LHC New Physics Working Group Collaboration, D. Alves et. al., Simplified Models
for LHC New Physics Searches, J.Phys. G39 (2012) 105005, [arXiv:1105.2838].
[96] D. E. Morrissey and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, Electroweak baryogenesis, New J.Phys. 14
(2012) 125003, [arXiv:1206.2942].
[97] A. Djouadi, The Anatomy of Electro-Weak Symmetry Breaking. II: The Higgs bosons in the
Minimal Supersymmetric Model, arXiv hep-ph (Mar, 2005) [hep-ph/0503173v2].
[98] A. Djouadi, The Anatomy of Electro-Weak Symmetry Breaking. I: The Higgs boson in the
Standard Model, arXiv hep-ph (Mar, 2005) [hep-ph/0503172v2].
[99] R. Dermisek and J. F. Gunion, New constraints on a light CP-odd Higgs boson and related
NMSSM Ideal Higgs Scenarios, Phys.Rev. D81 (2010) 075003, [arXiv:1002.1971].
[100] B. Echenard, Search for Light New Physics at B Factories, Adv.High Energy Phys. 2012
(2012) 514014, [arXiv:1209.1143].
[101] BaBar Collaboration Collaboration, J. Lees et. al., Search for a Low-Mass Scalar Higgs
Boson Decaying to a Tau Pair in Single-Photon Decays of Upsilon(1S), arXiv:1210.5669.
[102] D. McKeen, Constraining Light Bosons with Radiative Upsilon(1S) Decays, Phys.Rev. D79
(2009) 015007, [arXiv:0809.4787].
[103] M. Lisanti and J. G. Wacker, Discovering the Higgs with Low Mass Muon Pairs, Phys.Rev.
D79 (2009) 115006, [arXiv:0903.1377].
[104] H. E. Haber and G. L. Kane, The Search for Supersymmetry: Probing Physics Beyond the
Standard Model, Phys.Rept. 117 (1985) 75–263.
[105] J. E. Kim, Light Pseudoscalars, Particle Physics and Cosmology, Phys.Rept. 150 (1987)
1–177.
[106] R. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons, Phys.Rev.Lett.
38 (1977) 1440–1443.
[107] M. Trodden, Electroweak baryogenesis: A Brief review, hep-ph/9805252.
[108] G. Branco, P. Ferreira, L. Lavoura, M. Rebelo, M. Sher, et. al., Theory and phenomenology
of two-Higgs-doublet models, Phys.Rept. 516 (2012) 1–102, [arXiv:1106.0034].
[109] C.-Y. Chen, M. Freid, and M. Sher, The Next-to-Minimal Two Higgs Doublet Model,
193
arXiv:1312.3949.
[110] A. Dery, A. Efrati, G. Hiller, Y. Hochberg, and Y. Nir, Higgs couplings to fermions: 2HDM
with MFV, JHEP 1308 (2013) 006, [arXiv:1304.6727].
[111] W. Altmannshofer, S. Gori, and G. D. Kribs, A Minimal Flavor Violating 2HDM at the
LHC, Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 115009, [arXiv:1210.2465].
[112] N. Craig, J. A. Evans, R. Gray, C. Kilic, M. Park, et. al., Multi-Lepton Signals of Multiple
Higgs Bosons, JHEP 1302 (2013) 033, [arXiv:1210.0559].
[113] J. Gunion, B. Grzadkowski, H. Haber, and J. Kalinowski, LEP limits on CP violating
nonminimal Higgs sectors, Phys.Rev.Lett. 79 (1997) 982–985, [hep-ph/9704410].
[114] G. Belanger, B. Dumont, U. Ellwanger, J. Gunion, and S. Kraml, Global fit to Higgs signal
strengths and couplings and implications for extended Higgs sectors, arXiv:1306.2941.
[115] P. Ferreira, R. Santos, M. Sher, and J. P. Silva, Could the LHC two-photon signal
correspond to the heavier scalar in two-Higgs-doublet models?, Phys.Rev. D85 (2012)
035020, [arXiv:1201.0019].
[116] D. S. Alves, P. J. Fox, and N. J. Weiner, Higgs Signals in a Type I 2HDM or with a Sister
Higgs, arXiv:1207.5499.
[117] P. M. Ferreira, R. Santos, M. Sher, and J. P. Silva, Implications of the LHC two-photon
signal for two-Higgs-doublet models, arXiv hep-ph (Dec, 2011) [arXiv:1112.3277].
[118] N. Craig and S. Thomas, Exclusive Signals of an Extended Higgs Sector, JHEP 1211
(2012) 083, [arXiv:1207.4835].
[119] N. Craig and A. Katz, A Supersymmetric Higgs Sector with Chiral D-terms, JHEP 1305
(2013) 015, [arXiv:1212.2635].
[120] Y. Bai, V. Barger, L. L. Everett, and G. Shaughnessy, The 2HDM-X and Large Hadron
Collider Data, Phys.Rev. D87 (2013) 115013, [arXiv:1210.4922].
[121] A. Azatov and J. Galloway, Electroweak Symmetry Breaking and the Higgs Boson:
Confronting Theories at Colliders, Int.J.Mod.Phys. A28 (2013) 1330004,
[arXiv:1212.1380].
[122] C.-Y. Chen and S. Dawson, Exploring Two Higgs Doublet Models Through Higgs
Production, arXiv hep-ph (Jan, 2013) [arXiv:1301.0309]. 21 pages, 13 figures; matches
published version.
[123] M. Baumgart and A. Katz, Implications of a New Light Scalar Near the Bottomonium
194
Regime, JHEP 1208 (2012) 133, [arXiv:1204.6032].
[124] R. Essig, R. Harnik, J. Kaplan, and N. Toro, Discovering New Light States at Neutrino
Experiments, Phys.Rev. D82 (2010) 113008, [arXiv:1008.0636].
[125] J. Kersten and A. Y. Smirnov, Right-Handed Neutrinos at CERN LHC and the Mechanism
of Neutrino Mass Generation, Phys.Rev. D76 (2007) 073005, [arXiv:0705.3221].
[126] C. Csaki, E. Kuflik, and T. Volansky, Dynamical R-Parity Violation, arXiv:1309.5957.
[127] L. M. Carpenter, Fourth Generation Lepton Sectors with Stable Majorana Neutrinos: From
LEP to LHC, arXiv:1010.5502.
[128] W.-Y. Keung and P. Schwaller, Long Lived Fourth Generation and the Higgs, JHEP 1106
(2011) 054, [arXiv:1103.3765].
[129] L. M. Carpenter and D. Whiteson, Higgs Decays to Unstable Neutrinos: Collider
Constraints from Inclusive Like-Sign Dilepton Searches, arXiv:1107.2123.
[130] P. Langacker, The Physics of Heavy Z ′ Gauge Bosons, Rev.Mod.Phys. 81 (2009)
1199–1228, [arXiv:0801.1345].
[131] J. Jaeckel and A. Ringwald, The Low-Energy Frontier of Particle Physics,
Ann.Rev.Nucl.Part.Sci. 60 (2010) 405–437, [arXiv:1002.0329].
[132] J. Hewett, H. Weerts, R. Brock, J. Butler, B. Casey, et. al., Fundamental Physics at the
Intensity Frontier, arXiv:1205.2671.
[133] R. Essig, J. A. Jaros, W. Wester, et. al., Dark Sectors and New, Light, Weakly-Coupled
Particles, arXiv:1311.0029.
[134] M. J. Strassler, Why Unparticle Models with Mass Gaps are Examples of Hidden Valleys,
arXiv:0801.0629.
[135] N. Arkani-Hamed, D. P. Finkbeiner, T. R. Slatyer, and N. Weiner, A Theory of Dark
Matter, Phys.Rev. D79 (2009) 015014, [arXiv:0810.0713].
[136] M. Pospelov and A. Ritz, Astrophysical Signatures of Secluded Dark Matter, Phys.Lett.
B671 (2009) 391–397, [arXiv:0810.1502].
[137] D. P. Finkbeiner and N. Weiner, Exciting Dark Matter and the INTEGRAL/SPI 511 keV
signal, Phys.Rev. D76 (2007) 083519, [astro-ph/0702587].
[138] P. Fayet, Light spin 1/2 or spin 0 dark matter particles, Phys.Rev. D70 (2004) 023514,
[hep-ph/0403226].
[139] M. Pospelov, Secluded U(1) below the weak scale, Phys. Rev. D80 (2009) 095002.
195
[140] B. Holdom, Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts, Phys.Lett. B166 (1986) 196.
[141] P. Galison and A. Manohar, TWO Z’s OR NOT TWO Z’s?, Phys.Lett. B136 (1984) 279.
[142] K. R. Dienes, C. F. Kolda, and J. March-Russell, Kinetic mixing and the supersymmetric
gauge hierarchy, Nucl.Phys. B492 (1997) 104–118, [hep-ph/9610479].
[143] S. Abel and B. Schofield, Brane anti-brane kinetic mixing, millicharged particles and SUSY
breaking, Nucl.Phys. B685 (2004) 150–170, [hep-th/0311051].
[144] S. Abel, M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, V. Khoze, and A. Ringwald, Kinetic Mixing of the Photon
with Hidden U(1)s in String Phenomenology, JHEP 0807 (2008) 124, [arXiv:0803.1449].
[145] M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, J. Redondo, and A. Ringwald, Naturally Light Hidden Photons in
LARGE Volume String Compactifications, JHEP 0911 (2009) 027, [arXiv:0909.0515].
[146] M. Cicoli, M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, and A. Ringwald, Testing String Vacua in the Lab:
From a Hidden CMB to Dark Forces in Flux Compactifications, JHEP 1107 (2011) 114,
[arXiv:1103.3705].
[147] M. Goodsell, S. Ramos-Sanchez, and A. Ringwald, Kinetic Mixing of U(1)s in Heterotic
Orbifolds, JHEP 1201 (2012) 021, [arXiv:1110.6901].
[148] M. Baumgart, C. Cheung, J. T. Ruderman, L.-T. Wang, and I. Yavin, Non-Abelian Dark
Sectors and Their Collider Signatures, JHEP 0904 (2009) 014, [arXiv:0901.0283].
[149] N. Arkani-Hamed and N. Weiner, LHC Signals for a SuperUnified Theory of Dark Matter,
JHEP 0812 (2008) 104, [arXiv:0810.0714].
[150] R. Essig, P. Schuster, and N. Toro, Probing Dark Forces and Light Hidden Sectors at
Low-Energy e+e- Colliders, Phys. Rev. D80 (2009) 015003, [arXiv:0903.3941].
[151] J. D. Bjorken, R. Essig, P. Schuster, and N. Toro, New Fixed-Target Experiments to Search
for Dark Gauge Forces, Phys. Rev. D80 (2009) 075018.
[152] J. D. Bjorken et. al., Search for Neutral Metastable Penetrating Particles Produced in the
SLAC Beam Dump, Phys. Rev. D38 (1988) 3375.
[153] E. M. Riordan et. al., A Search for Short Lived Axions in an Electron Beam Dump
Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59 (1987) 755.
[154] A. Bross et. al., A Search for Shortlived Particles Produced in an Electron Beam Dump,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 67 (1991) 2942–2945.
[155] B. Batell, M. Pospelov, and A. Ritz, Probing a Secluded U(1) at B-factories, Phys. Rev.
D79 (2009) 115008.
196
[156] J. Blumlein and J. Brunner, New Exclusion Limits for Dark Gauge Forces from
Beam-Dump Data, Phys.Lett. B701 (2011) 155–159, [arXiv:1104.2747].
[157] S. Andreas, C. Niebuhr, and A. Ringwald, New Limits on Hidden Photons from Past
Electron Beam Dumps, Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 095019, [arXiv:1209.6083].
[158] M. Reece and L.-T. Wang, Searching for the light dark gauge boson in GeV-scale
experiments, JHEP 07 (2009) 051.
[159] BaBar Collaboration Collaboration, B. Aubert et. al., Search for Dimuon Decays of a
Light Scalar Boson in Radiative Transitions Υ→ γA0, Phys.Rev.Lett. 103 (2009) 081803,
[arXiv:0905.4539].
[160] F. Archilli, D. Babusci, D. Badoni, I. Balwierz, G. Bencivenni, et. al., Search for a vector
gauge boson in phi meson decays with the KLOE detector, Phys.Lett. B706 (2012) 251–255,
[arXiv:1110.0411].
[161] APEX Collaboration, S. Abrahamyan et. al., Search for a new gauge boson in the A′
Experiment (APEX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (2011) 191804, [arXiv:1108.2750].
[162] A1 Collaboration, H. Merkel et. al., Search for Light Gauge Bosons of the Dark Sector at
the Mainz Microtron, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011) 251802.
[163] J. B. Dent, F. Ferrer, and L. M. Krauss, Constraints on Light Hidden Sector Gauge Bosons
from Supernova Cooling, arXiv:1201.2683.
[164] H. Davoudiasl, H.-S. Lee, and W. J. Marciano, ’Dark’ Z implications for Parity Violation,
Rare Meson Decays, and Higgs Physics, Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 115019, [arXiv:1203.2947].
[165] H. Davoudiasl, H.-S. Lee, I. Lewis, and W. J. Marciano, Higgs Decays as a Window into the
Dark Sector, arXiv:1304.4935.
[166] S. Gopalakrishna, S. Jung, and J. D. Wells, Higgs boson decays to four fermions through an
abelian hidden sector, Phys.Rev. D78 (2008) 055002, [arXiv:0801.3456].
[167] C.-F. Chang, E. Ma, and T.-C. Yuan, Multilepton Higgs Decays through the Dark Portal,
arXiv:1308.6071.
[168] A. Hook, E. Izaguirre, and J. G. Wacker, Model Independent Bounds on Kinetic Mixing,
Adv.High Energy Phys. 2011 (2011) 859762, [arXiv:1006.0973].
[169] KLOE-2 Collaboration Collaboration, D. Babusci et. al., Limit on the production of a
light vector gauge boson in phi meson decays with the KLOE detector, Phys.Lett. B720
(2013) 111–115, [arXiv:1210.3927].
197
[170] H. Davoudiasl, H.-S. Lee, and W. J. Marciano, Dark Side of Higgs Diphoton Decays and
Muon g-2, Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 095009, [arXiv:1208.2973].
[171] M. Endo, K. Hamaguchi, and G. Mishima, Constraints on Hidden Photon Models from
Electron g-2 and Hydrogen Spectroscopy, Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 095029, [arXiv:1209.2558].
[172] WASA-at-COSY Collaboration Collaboration, P. Adlarson et. al., Search for a dark
photon in the π0 → e+e−γ decay, Phys.Lett. B726 (2013) 187–193, [arXiv:1304.0671].
[173] HADES Collaboration, G. Agakishiev et. al., Searching a Dark Photon with HADES,
Phys.Lett. B731 (2014) 265–271, [arXiv:1311.0216].
[174] H. Merkel, P. Achenbach, C. A. Gayoso, T. Beranek, J. Bericic, et. al., Search for light
massive gauge bosons as an explanation of the (g − 2)µ anomaly at MAMI,
arXiv:1404.5502.
[175] BaBar Collaboration, J. Lees et. al., Search for a dark photon in e+e- collisions at
BABAR, arXiv:1406.2980.
[176] Properties of the Higgs-like boson in the decay H to ZZ to 4l in pp collisions at√s = 7 and
8 TeV, Tech. Rep. CMS-PAS-HIG-13-002, CERN, Geneva, 2013.
[177] ATLAS Collaboration, Measurements of the properties of the Higgs-like boson in the four
lepton decay channel with the ATLAS detector using 25 fb−1 of proton-proton collision
data, .
[178] Particle Data Group Collaboration, J. Beringer et. al., Review of Particle Physics
(RPP), Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 010001.
[179] K. Hagiwara, J. S. Lee, and J. Nakamura, Properties of 125 GeV Higgs boson in
non-decoupling MSSM scenarios, JHEP 1210 (2012) 002, [arXiv:1207.0802].
[180] M. Drees, A Supersymmetric Explanation of the Excess of Higgs–Like Events at the LHC
and at LEP, Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 115018, [arXiv:1210.6507].
[181] G. Barenboim, C. Bosch, M. Lpez-Ibaez, and O. Vives, Eviction of a 125 GeV
”heavy”-Higgs from the MSSM, JHEP 1311 (2013) 051, [arXiv:1307.5973].
[182] J. F. Gunion and H. E. Haber, Higgs Bosons in Supersymmetric Models. 3. Decays Into
Neutralinos and Charginos, Nucl.Phys. B307 (1988) 445.
[183] D. Albornoz Vasquez, G. Belanger, R. Godbole, and A. Pukhov, The Higgs boson in the
MSSM in light of the LHC, Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 115013, [arXiv:1112.2200].
[184] N. Desai, B. Mukhopadhyaya, and S. Niyogi, Constraints on Invisible Higgs Decay in
198
MSSM in the Light of Diphoton Rates from the LHC, arXiv:1202.5190.
[185] H. K. Dreiner, J. S. Kim, and O. Lebedev, First LHC Constraints on Neutralinos,
Phys.Lett. B715 (2012) 199–202, [arXiv:1206.3096].
[186] T. Han, Z. Liu, and A. Natarajan, Dark matter and Higgs bosons in the MSSM, JHEP
1311 (2013) 008, [arXiv:1303.3040].
[187] B. Ananthanarayan, J. Lahiri, P. Pandita, and M. Patra, Invisible decays of the lightest
Higgs boson in supersymmetric models, Physical Review D 87, 115021 (2013)
[arXiv:1306.1291].
[188] U. Ellwanger, C. Hugonie, and A. M. Teixeira, The Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric
Standard Model, Phys.Rept. 496 (2010) 1–77, [arXiv:0910.1785].
[189] N. D. Christensen, T. Han, Z. Liu, and S. Su, Low-Mass Higgs Bosons in the NMSSM and
Their LHC Implications, JHEP 1308 (2013) 019, [arXiv:1303.2113].
[190] J. Cao, F. Ding, C. Han, J. M. Yang, and J. Zhu, A light Higgs scalar in the NMSSM
confronted with the latest LHC Higgs data, JHEP 1311 (2013) 018, [arXiv:1309.4939].
[191] R. Dermisek and J. F. Gunion, The NMSSM Close to the R-symmetry Limit and
Naturalness in h→ aa Decays for m a < 2m b, Phys.Rev. D75 (2007) 075019,
[hep-ph/0611142].
[192] D. E. Morrissey and A. Pierce, Modified Higgs Boson Phenomenology from Gauge or
Gaugino Mediation in the NMSSM, Phys.Rev. D78 (2008) 075029, [arXiv:0807.2259].
[193] R. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Constraints Imposed by CP Conservation in the Presence of
Instantons, Phys.Rev. D16 (1977) 1791–1797.
[194] E. Chun, Natural mu term with Peccei-Quinn symmetry, Phys.Lett. B348 (1995) 111–114,
[hep-ph/9411290].
[195] P. Ciafaloni and A. Pomarol, Dynamical determination of the supersymmetric Higgs mass,
Phys.Lett. B404 (1997) 83–88, [hep-ph/9702410].
[196] L. J. Hall and T. Watari, Electroweak supersymmetry with an approximate U(1)(PQ),
Phys.Rev. D70 (2004) 115001, [hep-ph/0405109].
[197] B. Feldstein, L. J. Hall, and T. Watari, Simultaneous solutions of the strong CP and mu
problems, Phys.Lett. B607 (2005) 155–164, [hep-ph/0411013].
[198] D. Miller and R. Nevzorov, The Peccei-Quinn axion in the next-to-minimal supersymmetric
standard model, hep-ph/0309143.
199
[199] R. Barbieri, L. J. Hall, A. Y. Papaioannou, D. Pappadopulo, and V. S. Rychkov, An
Alternative NMSSM phenomenology with manifest perturbative unification, JHEP 0803
(2008) 005, [arXiv:0712.2903].
[200] O. Lebedev and S. Ramos-Sanchez, The NMSSM and String Theory, Phys.Lett. B684
(2010) 48–51, [arXiv:0912.0477].
[201] B. A. Dobrescu, G. L. Landsberg, and K. T. Matchev, Higgs boson decays to CP odd
scalars at the Tevatron and beyond, Phys.Rev. D63 (2001) 075003, [hep-ph/0005308].
[202] C. Panagiotakopoulos and K. Tamvakis, New minimal extension of MSSM, Phys. Lett. B
469 (1999) 145, [hep-ph/9908351].
[203] D. Miller, S. Moretti, and R. Nevzorov, Higgs bosons in the NMSSM with exact and slightly
broken PQ-symmetry, hep-ph/0501139.
[204] www.th.u psud.fr/NMHDECAY/nmssmtools.html.
[205] U. Ellwanger and C. Hugonie, NMSPEC: A Fortran code for the sparticle and Higgs masses
in the NMSSM with GUT scale boundary conditions, Comput.Phys.Commun. 177 (2007)
399–407, [hep-ph/0612134].
[206] M. Muhlleitner, A. Djouadi, and Y. Mambrini, SDECAY: A Fortran code for the decays of
the supersymmetric particles in the MSSM, Comput.Phys.Commun. 168 (2005) 46–70,
[hep-ph/0311167].
[207] D. Das, U. Ellwanger, and A. M. Teixeira, NMSDECAY: A Fortran Code for
Supersymmetric Particle Decays in the Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model,
Comput.Phys.Commun. 183 (2012) 774–779, [arXiv:1106.5633].
[208] J.-J. Cao, K.-i. Hikasa, W. Wang, J. M. Yang, K.-i. Hikasa, et. al., Light dark matter in
NMSSM and implication on Higgs phenomenology, Phys.Lett. B703 (2011) 292–297,
[arXiv:1104.1754].
[209] N. Arkani-Hamed, A. G. Cohen, and H. Georgi, Electroweak symmetry breaking from
dimensional deconstruction, Phys.Lett. B513 (2001) 232–240, [hep-ph/0105239].
[210] N. Arkani-Hamed, A. Cohen, E. Katz, A. Nelson, T. Gregoire, et. al., The Minimal moose
for a little Higgs, JHEP 0208 (2002) 021, [hep-ph/0206020].
[211] M. Perelstein, Little Higgs models and their phenomenology, Prog.Part.Nucl.Phys. 58
(2007) 247–291, [hep-ph/0512128].
[212] M. Perelstein, M. E. Peskin, and A. Pierce, Top quarks and electroweak symmetry breaking
200
in little Higgs models, Phys.Rev. D69 (2004) 075002, [hep-ph/0310039].
[213] Z. Surujon and P. Uttayarat, Spontaneous CP Violation and Light Particles in The Littlest
Higgs, Phys.Rev. D83 (2011) 076010, [arXiv:1003.4779].
[214] R. S. Chivukula and H. Georgi, Composite Technicolor Standard Model, Phys.Lett. B188
(1987) 99.
[215] L. Hall and L. Randall, Weak scale effective supersymmetry, Phys.Rev.Lett. 65 (1990)
2939–2942.
[216] A. Buras, P. Gambino, M. Gorbahn, S. Jager, and L. Silvestrini, Universal unitarity
triangle and physics beyond the standard model, Phys.Lett. B500 (2001) 161–167,
[hep-ph/0007085].
[217] B. Bellazzini, C. Csaki, A. Falkowski, and A. Weiler, Buried Higgs, Phys.Rev. D80 (2009)
075008, [arXiv:0906.3026].
[218] A. Falkowski, D. Krohn, L.-T. Wang, J. Shelton, and A. Thalapillil, Unburied Higgs boson:
Jet substructure techniques for searching for Higgs’ decay into gluons, Phys.Rev. D84
(2011) 074022, [arXiv:1006.1650].
[219] B. Bellazzini, C. Csaki, A. Falkowski, and A. Weiler, Charming Higgs, Phys.Rev. D81
(2010) 075017, [arXiv:0910.3210].
[220] I. Lewis and J. Schmitthenner, Uncovering the Charming Higgs at the LHC, JHEP 1206
(2012) 072, [arXiv:1203.5174].
[221] J. E. Juknevich, D. Melnikov, and M. J. Strassler, A Pure-Glue Hidden Valley I. States and
Decays, JHEP 0907 (2009) 055, [arXiv:0903.0883].
[222] J. E. Juknevich, Pure-glue hidden valleys through the Higgs portal, JHEP 1008 (2010) 121,
[arXiv:0911.5616].
[223] J. L. Feng and J. Kumar, The WIMPless Miracle: Dark-Matter Particles without
Weak-Scale Masses or Weak Interactions, Phys.Rev.Lett. 101 (2008) 231301,
[arXiv:0803.4196].
[224] Z. Chacko, H.-S. Goh, and R. Harnik, The Twin Higgs: Natural Electroweak Breaking from
Mirror Symmetry, Phys.Rev.Lett. 96 (2006) 231802, [hep-ph/0506256].
[225] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et. al., Search for WH production with a light Higgs boson
decaying to prompt electron-jets in proton-proton collisions at√s =7 TeV with the ATLAS
detector, New J.Phys. 15 (2013) 043009, [arXiv:1302.4403].
201
[226] CDF Collaboration, T. Aaltonen et. al., Search for Anomalous Production of Multiple
Leptons in Association with W and Z Bosons at CDF, Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 092001,
[arXiv:1202.1260].
[227] CDF Collaboration Collaboration, F. Abe et. al., Search for long-lived parents of Z0
bosons in pp collisions at√s = 1.8 TeV, Phys.Rev. D58 (1998) 051102, [hep-ex/9805017].
[228] CDF Collaboration Collaboration, A. L. Scott, Search for long-lived parents of the Z0
boson, Int.J.Mod.Phys. A20 (2005) 3263–3266, [hep-ex/0410019].
[229] J. McDonald, Gauge singlet scalars as cold dark matter, Phys.Rev. D50 (1994) 3637–3649,
[hep-ph/0702143].
[230] C. Burgess, M. Pospelov, and T. ter Veldhuis, The Minimal model of nonbaryonic dark
matter: A Singlet scalar, Nucl.Phys. B619 (2001) 709–728, [hep-ph/0011335].
[231] Y. Mambrini, Higgs searches and singlet scalar dark matter: Combined constraints from
XENON 100 and the LHC, Phys.Rev. D84 (2011) 115017, [arXiv:1108.0671].
[232] B. Batell, Dark Discrete Gauge Symmetries, Phys.Rev. D83 (2011) 035006,
[arXiv:1007.0045].
[233] M. Pospelov and A. Ritz, Higgs decays to dark matter: beyond the minimal model,
Phys.Rev. D84 (2011) 113001, [arXiv:1109.4872].
[234] S. Weinberg, Goldstone Bosons as Fractional Cosmic Neutrinos, Phys.Rev.Lett. 110 (2013)
241301, [arXiv:1305.1971].
[235] S. P. Martin and J. D. Wells, Motivation and detectability of an invisibly decaying Higgs
boson at the Fermilab Tevatron, Phys.Rev. D60 (1999) 035006, [hep-ph/9903259].
[236] T. Han, P. Langacker, and B. McElrath, The Higgs sector in a U(1)-prime extension of the
MSSM, Phys.Rev. D70 (2004) 115006, [hep-ph/0405244].
[237] V. Barger, P. Langacker, H.-S. Lee, and G. Shaughnessy, Higgs Sector in Extensions of the
MSSM, Phys.Rev. D73 (2006) 115010, [hep-ph/0603247].
[238] L. J. Hall, D. Pinner, and J. T. Ruderman, A Natural SUSY Higgs Near 126 GeV, JHEP
1204 (2012) 131, [arXiv:1112.2703].
[239] J. Kozaczuk and S. Profumo, Light NMSSM Neutralino Dark Matter in the Wake of CDMS
II and a 126 GeV Higgs, arXiv:1308.5705.
[240] D. Bertolini, K. Rehermann, and J. Thaler, Visible Supersymmetry Breaking and an
Invisible Higgs, JHEP 1204 (2012) 130, [arXiv:1111.0628].
202
[241] A. S. Joshipura and S. D. Rindani, Majoron models and the Higgs search, Phys.Rev.Lett. 69
(1992) 3269–3273.
[242] A. Dedes, T. Figy, S. Hoche, F. Krauss, and T. E. Underwood, Searching for
Nambu-Goldstone Bosons at the LHC, JHEP 0811 (2008) 036, [arXiv:0807.4666].
[243] A. Delgado, J. R. Espinosa, and M. Quiros, Unparticles Higgs Interplay, JHEP 0710 (2007)
094, [arXiv:0707.4309].
[244] N. Craig and K. Howe, Doubling down on naturalness with a supersymmetric twin Higgs,
arXiv:1312.1341.
[245] A. Rozanov and M. Vysotsky, Tevatron constraints on the Higgs boson mass in the
fourth-generation fermion models revisited, Phys.Lett. B700 (2011) 313–315,
[arXiv:1012.1483].
[246] W.-Y. Keung and P. Schwaller, Long Lived Fourth Generation and the Higgs, JHEP 1106
(2011) 054, [arXiv:1103.3765].
[247] M. L. Graesser, Broadening the Higgs boson with right-handed neutrinos and a higher
dimension operator at the electroweak scale, Phys.Rev. D76 (2007) 075006,
[arXiv:0704.0438].
[248] S. Banerjee, P. S. B. Dev, S. Mondal, B. Mukhopadhyaya, and S. Roy, Invisible Higgs
Decay in a Supersymmetric Inverse Seesaw Model with Light Sneutrino Dark Matter,
arXiv:1306.2143.
[249] J. Gunion, Detecting an invisibly decaying Higgs boson at a hadron supercollider,
Phys.Rev.Lett. 72 (1994) 199–202, [hep-ph/9309216].
[250] B. P. Kersevan, M. Malawski, and E. Richter-Was, Prospects for observing an invisibly
decaying Higgs boson in the t anti-t H production at the LHC, Eur.Phys.J. C29 (2003)
541–548, [hep-ph/0207014].
[251] A. Djouadi, A. Falkowski, Y. Mambrini, and J. Quevillon, Direct detection of Higgs-portal
dark matter at the LHC, arXiv:1205.3169.
[252] Higgs Working Group Collaboration, D. Cavalli et. al., The Higgs working group:
Summary report, hep-ph/0203056.
[253] R. Godbole, M. Guchait, K. Mazumdar, S. Moretti, and D. Roy, Search for ‘invisible’ Higgs
signals at LHC via associated production with gauge bosons, Phys.Lett. B571 (2003)
184–192, [hep-ph/0304137].
203
[254] Sensitivity to an Invisibly Decaying Higgs Boson, Tech. Rep. ATL-PHYS-PUB-2009-061.
ATL-COM-PHYS-2009-220, CERN, Geneva, Apr, 2009.
[255] H. Davoudiasl, T. Han, and H. E. Logan, Discovering an invisibly decaying Higgs at hadron
colliders, Phys.Rev. D71 (2005) 115007, [hep-ph/0412269].
[256] D. Ghosh, R. Godbole, M. Guchait, K. Mohan, and D. Sengupta, Looking for an Invisible
Higgs Signal at the LHC, arXiv:1211.7015.
[257] S. Frederiksen, N. Johnson, G. L. Kane, and J. Reid, Detecting invisible Higgs bosons at the
CERN Large Hadron Collider, Phys.Rev. D50 (1994) 4244–4246.
[258] ATLAS Collaboration, Search for invisible decays of a Higgs boson produced in association
with a Z boson in ATLAS, .
[259] Search for invisible Higgs produced in association with a Z boson, Tech. Rep.
CMS-PAS-HIG-13-018, CERN, Geneva, 2013.
[260] Search for an invisible higgs boson, Tech. Rep. CMS-PAS-HIG-13-013, CERN, Geneva,
2013.
[261] K. Cheung, J. Song, and Q.-S. Yan, Role of h→ ηη in Intermediate-Mass Higgs Boson
Searches at the Large Hadron Collider, Phys.Rev.Lett. 99 (2007) 031801, [hep-ph/0703149].
[262] S. Chang, P. J. Fox, and N. Weiner, Naturalness and Higgs Decays in the MSSM with a
Singlet, JHEP 0608 (2006) 068, [hep-ph/0511250].
[263] T. Stelzer, S. Wiesenfeldt, and S. Willenbrock, Higgs at the Tevatron in Extended
Supersymmetric Models, Phys.Rev. D75 (2007) 077701, [hep-ph/0611242].
[264] M. Carena, T. Han, G.-Y. Huang, and C. E. Wagner, Higgs Signal for h→ aa at Hadron
Colliders, JHEP 0804 (2008) 092, [arXiv:0712.2466].
[265] D. E. Kaplan and M. McEvoy, Associated Production of Non-Standard Higgs Bosons at the
LHC, Phys.Rev. D83 (2011) 115004, [arXiv:1102.0704].
[266] B. Bellazzini, C. Csaki, J. Hubisz, and J. Shao, Discovering a Higgs boson decaying to four
jets in supersymmetric cascade decays, Phys.Rev. D83 (2011) 095018, [arXiv:1012.1316].
[267] C.-R. Chen, M. M. Nojiri, and W. Sreethawong, Search for the Elusive Higgs Boson Using
Jet Structure at LHC, JHEP 1011 (2010) 012, [arXiv:1006.1151].
[268] M. A. Luty, D. J. Phalen, and A. Pierce, Natural h→ 4g in Supersymmetric Models and
R-Hadrons at the LHC, Phys.Rev. D83 (2011) 075015, [arXiv:1012.1347].
[269] CMS Collaboration, Search for Higgs Boson in VH Production with H to bb, Tech. Rep.
204
CMS-PAS-HIG-11-031, CERN, Geneva, 2011.
[270] ATLAS Collaboration, Search for the Standard Model Higgs boson in produced in
association with a vector boson and decaying to bottom quarks with the ATLAS detector, .
[271] CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et. al., Search for a Higgs boson decaying into a
b-quark pair and produced in association with b quarks in proton-proton collisions at 7 TeV,
arXiv:1302.2892.
[272] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et. al., Search for the Standard Model Higgs boson produced
in association with a vector boson and decaying to a b-quark pair with the ATLAS detector,
Phys.Lett. B718 (2012) 369–390, [arXiv:1207.0210].
[273] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et. al., Search for top and bottom squarks from gluino pair
production in final states with missing transverse energy and at least three b-jets with the
ATLAS detector, Eur.Phys.J. C72 (2012) 2174, [arXiv:1207.4686].
[274] CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et. al., Search for the standard model Higgs boson
produced in association with a W or a Z boson and decaying to bottom quarks, Phys.Rev.
D89 (2014) 012003, [arXiv:1310.3687].
[275] U. Aglietti, A. Belyaev, S. Berge, A. Blum, R. Bonciani, et. al., Tevatron for LHC report:
Higgs, hep-ph/0612172.
[276] N. Adam, T. Aziz, J. Andersen, A. Belyaev, T. Binoth, et. al., Higgs Working Group
Summary Report, arXiv:0803.1154.
[277] CMS Collaboration, Higgs to tau tau (MSSM) (HCP), Tech. Rep. CMS-PAS-HIG-12-050,
CERN, Geneva, 2012.
[278] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et. al., Search for the neutral Higgs bosons of the Minimal
Supersymmetric Standard Model in pp collisions at√s = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector,
JHEP 1302 (2013) 095, [arXiv:1211.6956].
[279] C. Englert, J. Jaeckel, E. Re, and M. Spannowsky, Evasive Higgs Maneuvers at the LHC,
Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 035008, [arXiv:1111.1719].
[280] D. Curtin, R. Essig, Z. Surujon, and Y.-M. Zhong, to appear.
[281] CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et. al., Measurement of the Drell-Yan Cross Section in
pp Collisions at√s = 7 TeV, JHEP 1110 (2011) 007, [arXiv:1108.0566].
[282] S. Gonzalez, E. Ros, and M. Vos, Analysis of the process pp→ bbh/A→ bbµµ in the MSSM
with mA < 125 GeV, .
205
[283] J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, and T. Stelzer, MadGraph 5 : Going
Beyond, JHEP 1106 (2011) 128, [arXiv:1106.0522].
[284] ATLAS Collaboration, Measuring the b-tag efficiency in a top-pair sample with 4.7 fb−1 of
data from the ATLAS detector, Tech. Rep. ATLAS-CONF-2012-097, CERN, Geneva, Jul,
2012.
[285] D0 Collaboration, V. Abazov et. al., Search for NMSSM Higgs Bosons in the
h→ aa→ µµµµ, µµ ττ Channels Using pp Collisions at√s = 1.96 TeV, Phys.Rev.Lett.
103 (2009) 061801, [arXiv:0905.3381].
[286] CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et. al., Search for a Non-Standard-Model Higgs Boson
Decaying to a Pair of New Light Bosons in Four-Muon Final States, arXiv:1210.7619.
[287] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et. al., A Search for Prompt Lepton-Jets in pp Collisions at
√s = 7 TeV with the ATLAS Detector, Phys.Lett. B719 (2013) 299–317,
[arXiv:1212.5409].
[288] R. Dermisek and J. F. Gunion, Consistency of LEP Event Excesses with an h→ aa Decay
Scenario and Low-Fine-Tuning NMSSM models, Phys.Rev. D73 (2006) 111701,
[hep-ph/0510322].
[289] OPAL Collaboration, G. Abbiendi et. al., Search for a Low Mass CP Odd Higgs Boson in
e+e− Collisions with the OPAL Detector at LEP2, Eur.Phys.J. C27 (2003) 483–495,
[hep-ex/0209068].
[290] P. W. Graham, A. Pierce, and J. G. Wacker, Four Taus at the Tevatron, hep-ph/0605162.
[291] A. Belyaev, S. Hesselbach, S. Lehti, S. Moretti, A. Nikitenko, et. al., The Scope of the 4τ
Channel in Higgs-strahlung and Vector Boson Fusion for the NMSSM No-Lose Theorem at
the LHC, arXiv:0805.3505.
[292] C. Englert, T. S. Roy, and M. Spannowsky, Ditau Jets in Higgs searches, Phys.Rev. D84
(2011) 075026, [arXiv:1106.4545].
[293] A. Katz, M. Son, and B. Tweedie, Ditau-Jet Tagging and Boosted Higgses from a
Multi-TeV Resonance, Phys.Rev. D83 (2011) 114033, [arXiv:1011.4523].
[294] ALEPH Collaboration, S. Schael et. al., Search for Neutral Higgs Bosons Decaying into
Four Taus at LEP2, JHEP 1005 (2010) 049, [arXiv:1003.0705].
[295] CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et. al., Search for Anomalous Production of Multilepton
Events in pp Collisions at√s = 7 TeV, JHEP 1206 (2012) 169, [arXiv:1204.5341].
206
[296] CMS Collaboration, A Search for Anomalous Production of Events with Three or More
Leptons Using 9.2 fb−1 of√s = 8 TeV CMS Data, 2012. CMS PAS SUS-12-026.
[297] CMS Collaboration, “Search for RPV Supersymmetry with Three or More Leptons and
b-Tags.” CMS PAS SUS-12-027.
[298] CMS Collaboration, Search for RPV SUSY in the Four-Lepton Final State, 2013. CMS
PAS SUS-13-10.
[299] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et. al., Search for New Phenomena in Events with Three
Charged Leptons at√s = 7 TeV with the ATLAS Detector, Phys.Rev. D87 (2013) 052002,
[arXiv:1211.6312].
[300] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et. al., Search for Anomalous Production of Prompt
Like-Sign Lepton Pairs at√s = 7 TeV with the ATLAS Detector, JHEP 1212 (2012) 007,
[arXiv:1210.4538].
[301] T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, A Brief Introduction to PYTHIA 8.1,
Comput.Phys.Commun. 178 (2008) 852–867, [arXiv:0710.3820].
[302] LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group, S. Dittmaier, C. Mariotti, G. Passarino, and
R. Tanaka (Eds.), Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 1. Inclusive Observables,
CERN-2011-002 (CERN, Geneva, 2011) [arXiv:1101.0593].
[303] G. Bozzi, S. Catani, D. de Florian, and M. Grazzini, Transverse-Momentum Resummation
and the Spectrum of the Higgs Boson at the LHC, Nucl.Phys. B737 (2006) 73–120,
[hep-ph/0508068].
[304] D. de Florian, G. Ferrera, M. Grazzini, and D. Tommasini, Transverse-Momentum
Resummation: Higgs Boson Production at the Tevatron and the LHC, JHEP 1111 (2011)
064, [arXiv:1109.2109].
[305] S. Kanemura, K. Tsumura, and H. Yokoya, Multi-Tau-Lepton Signatures at the LHC in the
Two Higgs Doublet Model, Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 095001, [arXiv:1111.6089].
[306] A. Birkedal, Z. Chacko, and M. K. Gaillard, Little supersymmetry and the supersymmetric
little hierarchy problem, JHEP 0410 (2004) 036, [hep-ph/0404197].
[307] Z. Berezhiani, P. H. Chankowski, A. Falkowski, and S. Pokorski, Double protection of the
Higgs potential in a supersymmetric little Higgs model, Phys.Rev.Lett. 96 (2006) 031801,
[hep-ph/0509311].
[308] C. Csaki, G. Marandella, Y. Shirman, and A. Strumia, The Super-little Higgs, Phys.Rev.
207
D73 (2006) 035006, [hep-ph/0510294].
[309] S. Chang, P. J. Fox, and N. Weiner, Visible Cascade Higgs Decays to Four Photons at
Hadron Colliders, Phys.Rev.Lett. 98 (2007) 111802, [hep-ph/0608310].
[310] A. Martin, Higgs Cascade Decays to gamma gamma + jet jet at the LHC, hep-ph/0703247.
[311] S. D. Ellis, T. S. Roy, and J. Scholtz, Jets and Photons, arXiv:1210.1855.
[312] S. D. Ellis, T. S. Roy, and J. Scholtz, Phenomenology of Photon-Jets, Phys.Rev. D87
(2013) 014015, [arXiv:1210.3657].
[313] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et. al., Measurement of isolated-photon pair production in
pp collisions at√s = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 1301 (2013) 086,
[arXiv:1211.1913].
[314] CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et. al., Measurement of the Production Cross Section
for Pairs of Isolated Photons in pp collisions at√s = 7 TeV, JHEP 1201 (2012) 133,
[arXiv:1110.6461].
[315] P. Draper and D. McKeen, Diphotons from Tetraphotons in the Decay of a 125 GeV Higgs
at the LHC, Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 115023, [arXiv:1204.1061].
[316] L. Landau, On the angular momentum of a two-photon system, Dokl.Akad.Nauk Ser.Fiz.
60 (1948) 207–209.
[317] C.-N. Yang, Selection Rules for the Dematerialization of a Particle Into Two Photons,
Phys.Rev. 77 (1950) 242–245.
[318] D. McKeen and J. Scholtz, to appear, .
[319] Expected photon performance in the ATLAS experiment, Tech. Rep.
ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-007, CERN, Geneva, Apr, 2011.
[320] N. Toro and I. Yavin, Multiphotons and photon jets from new heavy vector bosons,
Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 055005, [arXiv:1202.6377].
[321] B. Batell, D. McKeen, and M. Pospelov, Singlet Neighbors of the Higgs Boson, JHEP 1210
(2012) 104, [arXiv:1207.6252].
[322] ATLAS Collaboration, Search for a Higgs boson decaying to four photons through light
CP-odd scalar coupling using 4.9 fb−1 of 7 TeV pp collision data taken with ATLAS
detector at the LHC, Tech. Rep. ATLAS-CONF-2012-079, CERN, Geneva, Jul, 2012.
[323] G. Mahlon and S. J. Parke, Using Spin Correlations to Distinguish Zh from ZA at the
International Linear Collider, Phys.Rev. D74 (2006) 073001, [hep-ph/0606052].
208
[324] S. Chang and A. Menon, Discovering Nonstandard Higgs bosons in the H→ZA Channel
Decay to Multileptons, JHEP 1302 (2013) 152, [arXiv:1211.4869].
[325] M. M. Almarashi and S. Moretti, LHC Signals of a Heavy CP-even Higgs Boson in the
NMSSM via Decays into a Z and a Light CP-odd Higgs State, Phys.Rev. D85 (2012)
017701, [arXiv:1109.1735].
[326] H. Davoudiasl, H.-S. Lee, and W. J. Marciano, Muon Anomaly and Dark Parity Violation,
Phys.Rev.Lett. 109 (2012) 031802, [arXiv:1205.2709].
[327] K. Babu, C. F. Kolda, and J. March-Russell, Implications of generalized Z - Z-prime
mixing, Phys.Rev. D57 (1998) 6788–6792, [hep-ph/9710441].
[328] F. Domingo, Updated Constraints from Radiative Υ Decays on a Light CP-odd Higgs,
JHEP 1104 (2011) 016, [arXiv:1010.4701].
[329] CDF Collaboration, T. Aaltonen et. al., Search for a Very Light CP-Odd Higgs Boson in
Top Quark Decays from pp Collisions at 1.96 TeV, Phys.Rev.Lett. 107 (2011) 031801,
[arXiv:1104.5701].
[330] A Search for Light CP-Odd Higgs Bosons Decaying to mu+ mu- in ATLAS, Tech. Rep.
ATLAS-CONF-2011-020, CERN, Geneva, Mar, 2011.
[331] CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et. al., Search for a light pseudoscalar Higgs boson in
the dimuon decay channel in pp collisions at√s = 7 TeV, Phys.Rev.Lett. 109 (2012)
121801, [arXiv:1206.6326].
[332] ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, LEP Working Group for Higgs Boson Searches
Collaboration, S. Schael et. al., Search for neutral MSSM Higgs bosons at LEP, Eur.Phys.J.
C47 (2006) 547–587, [hep-ex/0602042].
[333] B. Grinstein, C. W. Murphy, and D. Pirtskhalava, Searching for New Physics in the
Three-Body Decays of the Higgs-like Particle, JHEP 1310 (2013) 077, [arXiv:1305.6938].
[334] G. Isidori, A. V. Manohar, and M. Trott, Probing the nature of the Higgs-like Boson via
h→ V F decays, Phys.Lett. B728 (2014) 131–135, [arXiv:1305.0663].
[335] H.-S. Lee and M. Sher, Dark Two Higgs Doublet Model, Phys.Rev. D87 (2013) 115009,
[arXiv:1303.6653].
[336] A. Martin and T. S. Roy, The Gold-Plated Channel for Supersymmetric Higgs via
Higgsphilic Z’, arXiv:1103.3504.
[337] Search for a non-standard-model higgs boson decaying to a pair of new light bosons in
209
four-muon final states, Tech. Rep. CMS-PAS-HIG-13-010, CERN, Geneva, 2013.
[338] N. D. Christensen and C. Duhr, FeynRules - Feynman rules made easy,
Comput.Phys.Commun. 180 (2009) 1614–1641, [arXiv:0806.4194].
[339] ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of the total ZZ production cross section in
proton-proton collisions at√s = 8 TeV in 20 fb−1 with the ATLAS detector, Tech. Rep.
ATLAS-CONF-2013-020, CERN, Geneva, Mar, 2013.
[340] Measurements of the properties of the Higgs-like boson in the four lepton decay channel with
the ATLAS detector using 25 fb−1 of proton-proton collision data, Tech. Rep.
ATLAS-CONF-2013-013, CERN, Geneva, Mar, 2013.
[341] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et. al., Expected Performance of the ATLAS Experiment -
Detector, Trigger and Physics, arXiv:0901.0512.
[342] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et. al., Electron performance measurements with the
ATLAS detector using the 2010 LHC proton-proton collision data, Eur.Phys.J. C72 (2012)
1909, [arXiv:1110.3174].
[343] LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group Collaboration, S. Heinemeyer et. al.,
Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 3. Higgs Properties, arXiv:1307.1347.
[344] A. Djouadi and M. Drees, Higgs boson decays into light gravitinos, Phys.Lett. B407 (1997)
243–249, [hep-ph/9703452].
[345] D. Suematsu, Neutralino decay in the mu problem solvable extra U(1) models, Phys.Rev.
D57 (1998) 1738–1754, [hep-ph/9708413].
[346] M. L. Graesser, Experimental Constraints on Higgs Boson Decays to TeV-scale
Right-Handed Neutrinos, arXiv:0705.2190.
[347] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et. al., Search for dark matter candidates and large extra
dimensions in events with a photon and missing transverse momentum in pp collision data
at√s = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector, arXiv:1209.4625.
[348] Search for dark matter candidates and large extra dimensions in events with a photon and
missing transverse momentum in pp collision data at√s = 7 TeV with the ATLAS
detector, Tech. Rep. ATLAS-CONF-2012-085, CERN, Geneva, Jul, 2012.
[349] CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et. al., Search for Dark Matter and Large Extra
Dimensions in pp Collisions Yielding a Photon and Missing Transverse Energy,
Phys.Rev.Lett. 108 (2012) 261803, [arXiv:1204.0821].
210
[350] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et. al., Measurements of Wγ and Zγ production in pp
collisions at√s= 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys.Rev. D87 (2013)
112003, [arXiv:1302.1283].
[351] CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et. al., Measurement of the production cross section for
Zγ → ννγ in pp collisions at√s = 7 TeV and limits on ZZγ and Zγγ triple gauge boson
couplings, JHEP 1310 (2013) 164, [arXiv:1309.1117].
[352] Search for supersymmetry in events with at least one photon, one lepton, and large missing
transverse momentum in proton–proton collision at a center-of-mass energy of 7 TeV with
the ATLAS detector, Tech. Rep. ATLAS-CONF-2012-144, CERN, Geneva, Nov, 2012.
[353] CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et. al., Search for supersymmetry in events with a
lepton, a photon, and large missing transverse energy in pp collisions at√s = 7 TeV, JHEP
1106 (2011) 093, [arXiv:1105.3152].
[354] CDF Collaboration, A. Abulencia et. al., Search for new physics in lepton + photon + X
events with 929 pb−1 of pp collisions at√s = 1.96 TeV, Phys.Rev. D75 (2007) 112001,
[hep-ex/0702029].
[355] CDF Collaboration, Search for Anomalous Production of Photon + Jets + Missing
Transverse Energy Events in pp collisions at√s = 1.96 TeV, .
[356] CMS Collaboration, SUSY Search in Photon(s)+jets+MET final state with the
Jet-Gamma Balance method, .
[357] CMS Collaboration, Search for supersymmetry in events with photons and missing energy, .
[358] P. Meade, N. Seiberg, and D. Shih, General Gauge Mediation, Prog.Theor.Phys.Suppl. 177
(2009) 143–158, [arXiv:0801.3278].
[359] J. L. Diaz-Cruz, D. K. Ghosh, and S. Moretti, The Diphoton signature of Higgs bosons in
GMSB models at the CERN LHC, Phys.Rev. D68 (2003) 014019, [hep-ph/0303251].
[360] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et. al., Search for diphoton events with large missing
transverse momentum in 7 TeV proton-proton collision data with the ATLAS detector,
Phys.Lett. B718 (2012) 411–430, [arXiv:1209.0753].
[361] Y. F. Chan, M. Low, D. E. Morrissey, and A. P. Spray, LHC Signatures of a Minimal
Supersymmetric Hidden Valley, JHEP 1205 (2012) 155, [arXiv:1112.2705].
[362] S.-Y. Ho and J. Tandean, Probing Scotogenic Effects in Higgs Boson Decays, Phys.Rev.
D87 (2013), no. 9 095015, [arXiv:1303.5700].
211
[363] S.-Y. Ho and J. Tandean, Probing Scotogenic Effects in e+e- Colliders, arXiv:1312.0931.
[364] CMS Collaboration, Search for electroweak production of charginos, neutralinos, and
sleptons using leptonic final states in pp collisions at√s = 8 TeV, 2012. CMS PAS
SUS-12-022.
[365] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for supersymmetry in events with four or more leptons in
21 fb1 of pp collisions at√s = 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector.” ATLAS-CONF-2013-036.
[366] ATLAS Collaboration, Search for direct production of charginos and neutralinos in events
with three leptons and missing transverse momentum in 21 fb−1 of pp collisions at√s = 8
TeV with the ATLAS detector, 2013. ATLAS-CONF-2013-035.
[367] Search for RPV SUSY in the four-lepton final state, Tech. Rep. CMS-PAS-SUS-13-010,
CERN, Geneva, 2013.
[368] Search for electroweak production of charginos, neutralinos, and sleptons using leptonic final
states in pp collisions at 8 TeV, Tech. Rep. CMS-PAS-SUS-13-006, CERN, Geneva, 2013.
[369] E. Contreras-Campana, N. Craig, R. Gray, C. Kilic, M. Park, et. al., Multi-Lepton Signals
of the Higgs Boson, JHEP 1204 (2012) 112, [arXiv:1112.2298].
[370] N. Craig, M. Park, and J. Shelton, Multi-Lepton Signals of Top-Higgs Associated
Production, arXiv:1308.0845.
[371] S. Chang and N. Weiner, Nonstandard Higgs decays with visible and missing energy, JHEP
0805 (2008) 074, [arXiv:0710.4591].
[372] S. Chang and T. Gregoire, Discovering a Nonstandard Higgs in a Standard Way,
arXiv:0903.0403.
[373] Update of the search for the standard model higgs boson decaying into ww in the vector
boson fusion production channel, Tech. Rep. CMS-PAS-HIG-13-022, CERN, Geneva, 2013.
[374] ATLAS Collaboration, Measurements of the properties of the Higgs-like boson in the
WW ∗ → lνlν decay channel with the ATLAS detector using 25 fb−1 of proton-proton
collision data, 2013. ATLAS Public Note ATLAS-CONF-2013-030.
[375] Evidence for a particle decaying to W+W− in the fully leptonic final state in a standard
model Higgs boson search in pp collisions at the LHC, Tech. Rep. CMS-PAS-HIG-13-003,
CERN, Geneva, 2013.
[376] A. Falkowski, J. T. Ruderman, T. Volansky, and J. Zupan, Hidden Higgs Decaying to
Lepton Jets, JHEP 1005 (2010) 077, [arXiv:1002.2952].
212
[377] CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et. al., Search for Light Resonances Decaying into
Pairs of Muons as a Signal of New Physics, JHEP 1107 (2011) 098, [arXiv:1106.2375].
[378] S.-h. Zhu, Unique Higgs boson signature at colliders, hep-ph/0611270.
[379] HyperCP Collaboration, H. Park et. al., Evidence for the decay Σ+ → pµ+µ−,
Phys.Rev.Lett. 94 (2005) 021801, [hep-ex/0501014].
[380] A. Belyaev, J. Pivarski, A. Safonov, S. Senkin, and A. Tatarinov, LHC discovery potential
of the lightest NMSSM Higgs in the h1 → a1a1 → 4µ channel, Phys.Rev. D81 (2010)
075021, [arXiv:1002.1956].
[381] A. Falkowski, J. T. Ruderman, T. Volansky, and J. Zupan, Discovering Higgs Decays to
Lepton Jets at Hadron Colliders, Phys.Rev.Lett. 105 (2010) 241801, [arXiv:1007.3496].
[382] J. M. Butterworth, A. R. Davison, M. Rubin, and G. P. Salam, Jet substructure as a new
Higgs search channel at the LHC, Phys.Rev.Lett. 100 (2008) 242001, [arXiv:0802.2470].
[383] CMS Collaboration, Search for the standard model Higgs boson produced in association
with W or Z bosons, and decaying to bottom quarks, 2013. CMS PAS HIG-13-012.
[384] ATLAS Collaboration, Search for the bb decay of the Standard Model Higgs boson in
associated (W/Z)H production with the ATLAS detector, 2013. ATLAS-CONF-2013-079.
[385] J. Huang, T. Liu, L.-T. Wang, and F. Yu, Supersymmetric Sub-Electroweak Scale Dark
Matter, the Galactic Center Gamma-ray Excess, and Exotic Decays of the 125 GeV Higgs
Boson, arXiv:1407.0038.
[386] CMS Collaboration, Search for the Standard-Model Higgs boson decaying to tau pairs in
proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 and 8 TeV, 2013. CMS Public Note
CMS-PAS-HIG-13-004.
[387] ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et. al., Search for the Standard Model Higgs boson in the H
to τ+τ− decay mode in√s = 7 TeV pp collisions with ATLAS, JHEP 1209 (2012) 070,
[arXiv:1206.5971].
[388] CMS Collaboration, Evidence for a particle decaying to W+W− in the fully leptonic final
state in a standard model Higgs boson search in pp collisions at the LHC, 2013. CMS
Public Note CMS-PAS-HIG-13-003.
[389] ATLAS Collaboration, Search for electroweak production of supersymmetric particles in
final states with at least two hadronically decaying taus and missing transverse momentum
with the ATLAS detector in proton-proton collisions at√s = 8 TeV, 2013. ATLAS Public
213
Note ATLAS-CONF-2013-028.
[390] M. Drees and K.-i. Hikasa, Heavy Quark Thresholds in Higgs Physics, Phys. Rev. D41
(1990) 1547.
[391] L. R. Surguladze, Quark mass effects in fermionic decays of the Higgs boson in O
(alpha-s**2) perturbative QCD, Phys. Lett. B341 (1994) 60–72, [hep-ph/9405325].
[392] L. R. Surguladze, Minimal supersymmetric Higgs boson decay rate in O (alpha(s)**2)
perturbative QCD, Phys. Lett. B338 (1994) 229–234, [hep-ph/9406294].
[393] R. Dermisek and J. F. Gunion, New constraints on a light CP-odd Higgs boson and related
NMSSM Ideal Higgs Scenarios, arXiv hep-ph (Feb, 2010) [arXiv:1002.1971].
214